Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — BERMUDA CONSTITUTION BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14th June], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

10.4 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: When the debate was adjourned last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) was addressing the House, but he does not seem to be here. Mr. Fitt.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: In moving the Second Reading last Wednesday, my hon. Friend the Minister of State stated—and I readily agree with her—that although this was a small Bill it was of the utmost importance. She said:
The object of this very short but important Bill is to enable a new Constitution to be established for Bermuda.
Later, she added:
Provision will … be made to safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual and to ensure the independence of the judiciary and the public service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 480.]
Again, I heartily agree. But I suggest that the time to go out of our way to make provision for the protection of fundamental rights in Bermuda is now, before a new constitution is drawn up. It is fortunate that the debate was adjourned last Wednesday because, in the interval, many hon. Members have had time to inquire further into the facts and the circumstances of the Bill and I believe that I myself have been able to elicit a great deal of further information.
For example, in opening the debate for the Opposition last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) said that it was only within recent years that he had noticed racial tensions emerging in Bermuda. I was

in Bermuda on four or five occasions as a merchant seaman between 1941 and 1953. I met many Bermudans. I was not taken on conducted tours but I met ordinary working class people of Bermuda, both coloured and white. In the inquiries I have made in the past few days, I have found that increasing tension has been emerging in Rhodesia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bermuda."]—Bermuda. The problem is so much the same, but I hope that it will not be as difficult.
The problem now with us in Bermuda began to come to light in 1947, when a petition was presented through the Governor of the island to this House. Objections were made in the petition to the system then operating in Bermuda and these objections were put before the late Arthur Creech Jones, then Colonial Secretary, asking that steps be taken to redress many of the injustices which existed in the island at the time. There was quite a litany of problems, including anti-trade union legislation and the non-existence of proper trade union legislation. But, far and away beyond this, was the objection raised in paragraph (6) of the document then presented to Mr. Creech Jones. It said:
Your Petitioners are quite convinced that almost all of the political, economic and social disabilities suffered by the inhabitants of this ancient and loyal Colony have their foundation in the fact that the Parliamentary franchise is extremely limited.
In his answer to the Governor, later passed to the House of Assembly, Mr. Creech Jones said:
I have given careful consideration to this petition and in the light of the memorandum enclosed with your dispatch I cannot escape the conclusion that it calls for close and serious attention by those responsible for the conduct of affairs in Bermuda.
It will be seen that the problem is not a recent one. It has its beginnings in the unrest and discontent which began to appear in 1947. It was obvious then that the greatest ill existing was the unequal franchise. From 1942 until 1960, steps were taken to change the form of franchise. New constituency boundaries were drawn between 1961–62 and the franchise was extended to give the vote to those who had not previously had that right.
One would have thought that this would have ended the problem, but the system remained. This can be seen by


the fact that in the division of Pembroke, North at the last election there were 4,977 electors. Of that figure, 4,381 were coloured. In Southampton, West there were 331 electors, of whom 132 were coloured. Each of these constituencies sends two members to the Assembly, yet there is this great discrepancy in the electorate. This system made the wrongs more blatant and understandable to those involved.
As one representing Northern Ireland and very concerned with gerrymandering at all levels, I take it upon myself to make a plea to the hon. Lady that, before going ahead with this Bill, she will determine the feelings of the ordinary people in Bermuda. If we go ahead and accept the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, we are sowing the seeds of discontent and within a few years we will have a situation such as that existing in Watts County.
The hon. Member for Torquay gave as one of the reasons why discontent had become apparent in recent years the fact that American newspapers were readily available in Bermuda. I do not accept this. Where there is a relatively affluent society and a reasonably high standard of living, where there is no reason for discontent and all people are treated as equals, it would take a good deal more than American newspapers to create this discontent and to bring people on to the streets to fight for their rights.
It was said last week that there are two copies of the Boundary Commission Report in the Library. I claim responsibility for having them placed there, because I rang the Colonial Affairs Office, and asked that this should be done. I am one of the fortunate Members who has received a copy personally. In the absence of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission being made available to all Members of this House, the Minister should not proceed with this Bill, because the House is in no position to make a decision.
Are hon. Members aware that the acceptance of the Report was not unanimous in the House of Assembly in Bermuda? The voting was 19 to seven, with nine abstentions. This shows anything but unanimity in the acceptance of the Report. A total of 15 elected members of the Assembly attended the Ber-

muda Conference in London. They returned home with instructions to draw up a report relating to constituencies.
When the debate on the Report took place in Committee in Bermuda it was found that of those 15 members six voted for, and they were aided by the Speaker, who, unlike yourself, Sir, can be rather partisan, and speak and vote on issues. Seven out of the 15 who attended the Conference supported the recommendations of the Commission. Six people who had been to the Conference voted against and two abstained. So out of those 15 members there was a majority against accepting the proposal of the Boundary Commission. With such a division of opinion it ill-becomes any hon. Member of this House to agree to this Measure.
I am placed in a rather unusual position. I have recently been reading a book by Sir Winston Churchill, published in 1936, "Great Contemporaries". He was speaking of Charles Stewart Parnell and the part that he played in the Irish Parliamentary Party in defence of colonial peoples. He said:
In every movement of reform, now achieved and long surpassed, Parnell brought the Irish Parliamentary Party to the aid of the most advanced and challenging forces in British public life.
I hope that in a small way I am carrying on this tradition this morning.
I have a more personal reason, because I believe that the House is being asked to endorse a vicious gerrymander in the oldest Parliament in the Commonwealth. It is a Parliament which has been in existence since 1620. I know that in Northern Ireland some people believe that the world began in 1690, but the Bermuda Parliament has been in existence since 1620.
The Report of the Boundary Commission provides for the perpetuation of a gerrymander. In the constituency of Devonshire, the boundaries have been so drawn as to make it a racial division. On the one side there is the coloured working class and on the other there are the white electors. One must ask: why gerrymander in the first place? One does not gerrymander from a purely academic point of view. The logical sequence to a gerrymander, to an unfair distribution of electors and the rigging of boundaries, is that one section of the electors receives favoured treatment from the party in


power. Once we accept the underlying principle of gerrymandering—that it is meant to divide the people on political lines so that one section of them will vote for a particular party, whether it be on grounds of politics, race, religion or colour—the people who gain from the existence of the gerrymandering will be placed in the role of first-class citizens vis-à-vis the people who are denied their just rights by the existence of the gerrymander.
We have had a great deal of experience of this, not only in the Commonwealth, but in parts of the United Kingdom. In my maiden speech in this House—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Fitt: I will not continue on those lines, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Parnell learnt the rules of the House by breaking all of them in turn. The hon. Gentleman must keep in order.

Mr. Fitt: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am drawing this parallel because we already have experience of the discontent which can arise from the existence of gerrymandering. I am making a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister of State to ensure that the same thing does not happen in Bermuda. I do not wish to see exist in Bermuda the trouble, discontent, division and schisms which exist in my homeland. That is all that I wish to say on that point. I know that it will be accepted by my hon. Friend with the sincerity with which it was said.
At the Constitutional Conference it was recommended to the people in attendance that a person of high legal status from Britain should go to Bermuda to inquire into the system of registration and to see whether it could be improved. This recommendation was accepted. The idea was to see whether the system could be abolished or whether the British system of registration could be implanted in Bermuda. But the person who went there did not do that. He said in his report that the terms of reference which were given to him prevented him from changing the registration system and implementing the British system in Bermuda. He said that all he could do was to see how the existing system of

registration could be improved. There has been a gross misinterpretation of the thinking of the people who attended the Constitutional Conference. I think that before the Bill is given a Second Reading the Minister should clarify this very important point.
In his report, Mr. Hucks said that under the system in operation 63 per cent. of the people were registered as voters. With the improvements which he has recommended, this would be increased by 7 per cent. If the recommendation of Mr. Hucks is accepted, 70 per cent. of the people will be registered rather than 63 per cent. This is certainly not a dramatic improvement. If the system under which we operate in these islands —and I am prepared to say that it is the best system for registration which is available, not only in this part of the world, but in any other part—is good enough for the United Kingdom it must be suitable for the less fortunate people of Bermuda.
There is embodied in the Boundary Commission's Report something which is tantamount to an acceptance of the fact that there is a race problem in Bermuda. The report of the Constitutional Conference said that no regard should be paid to race or colour in the drawing of constituency boundaries. But the fact that Devonshire has been drawn on white and black lines and racial lines makes it clear that those who were in charge of drawing up the Boundary Commission's Report did pay regard to race and colour. In the Pembroke constituency, the majority of the electors are not the coloured but the white working class. It may not be generally known that in Bermuda there are three classes: the coloured working class, the Portuguese working class and the dominating white master race.
If we pass the Bill in its present form without knowing all the ramifications of the discussions which have taken place in Bermuda over the past two or three weeks, we shall be in no position to give a decision.
On the question of the ability to stand for Parliament, we are operating in a vacuum. Last week, the Minister said that no decision had been taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) said that, according to his


information, a decision had been taken that no change should be made. If the present system is continued, the vast majority of the working class people will he debarred from standing as candidates for Parliament. Would my hon. Friend let us know whether this is the case? Has a decision been taken by the Select Committee that no change should be made, or has a decision been taken by the United Bankers Party, which would be more correctly entitled the United Bermudan Party, that, irrespective of the deliberations of the Select Committee, it will not accept that changes should be made which would open up candidature for Parliament to a lot of people who were previously debarred? This is very important. The passing of the Bill is not of great urgency. Surely the House would be better advised to take a decision when it is aware of all the facts than in a vacuum.
The Bill makes provision in subsection (2) and (3) of Clause 1 that the supreme responsibility for the operation of government in Bermuda rests with this House. Subsection (2) provides:
Any Order in Council under this section may vary or revoke, or provide for the variation or revocation of, any Letters Patent relating to the government of Bermuda, any instrument issued in pursuance of any such Letters Patent, or any law relating to the government of Bermuda and made by any legislature for the time being constituted as the legislature of Bermuda.
If the Bill is unfortunately pushed through the House this morning, and if in the months which lie ahead it becomes apparent that racialism is emerging in Bermuda, will the British Parliament be prepared to act? That is what the subsections mean. Are we prepared to take a stand?
As most of my hon. Friends and I understand subsections (2) and (3), they read suspiciously like the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, by Section 75 of which full responsibility
over all persons, matters, and things
in Northern Ireland was retained in this House. We have, however, noted the decided reluctance over the years to implement that Section of the Act in defence of many objections which have been raised.
I am drawing a parallel with what I see in the Bill. I am asking my hon.

Friend the Minister of State this: if in the years which lie ahead it becomes apparent that action is necessary to be taken by the British Government, will we, take that action or will we be told that a convention has been built up that those things are not done and that if we were to do those things we would be breaking the convention? Such a convention has existed concerning Northern Ireland for over 40 years. It has existed in Bermuda, not for 40 years, but for six months, and is in process of being built up. Before I can support the Bill, I want to make certain that if action is necessary to be taken by the British Government, it will be taken and in no uncertain manner.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State, with all the sincerity at my command, to accept the arguments which I have put forward. If I believed that the Boundary Commission in Bermuda would lead to a more happy and contented existence for the majority of people in that island, I would have no hesitation in accepting and supporting it. In view, however, of the history in my own homeland, I must question what is liable to happen in Bermuda.
I say again to my hon. Friend that there is no great urgency for the Bill until we have had a report from the Select Committee about whether it will change the law concerning candidates. Let us wait until we have had a report from those who were in attendance at the constitutional conference who objected to the Boundary Commission's proposal.
Would it not be right and proper, in fact, that the people of Bermuda should be given a chance to decide what their constitution and what the boundary commission should be? There are only 50,000 people in the island. We could carry out a referendum within a week in Bermuda, the same as we are to do in Gibraltar in the latter part of the year, or is it a fact that one carries out a, referendum only when one is sure that the result will be in one's favour? The people of Bermuda should have a chance to decide their own political destiny in this connection.
I ask my hon. Friend to take note of the objections which were raised last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking and another hon. Member on


this side, who voiced sincerely-held suspicions, and the objections which I, too, have voiced. I have no doubt that other hon. Members will wish to speak. I ask my hon. Friend to take all these into consideration and not to attempt to push the Bill through this morning. I believe that if our suspicions could be allayed in any way, we would certainly be prepared to support the Bill.

10.34 a.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I wish to intervene merely to join in the expressions of good wishes to Bermuda on her independence and to follow briefly the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). You may recall, Mr. Speaker, the interesting precedent in the days of Parnell, when Tim Healy delivered a lengthy and ornate speech on the problems of Uganda and then, at the end of that lengthy speech, which I think occupied the House for three-quarters of an hour, said, "Mr. Speaker, did I say Uganda throughout my speech? I really meant to say Ireland". I thought that the hon. Member for Belfast, West would follow that precedent.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: He said Rhodesia.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The present Speaker was not in the Chair then.

Mr. Mills: The hon. Member for Belfast, West made a very interesting speech, to which I certainly listened with rapt attention, as I noticed did you, Mr. Speaker. However, he made a number of charges of gerrymandering and charges of a constitutional nature. As the hon. Member tends to say things of that kind everywhere he looks, I hope that the Minister of State, if I may say this politely, will take them with a slight pinch of salt.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West is following close to the traditions of Parnell. It will be recalled that the main thing that Parnell did was to bore the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not himself be tempted to follow the traditions of Parnell. He must come to the Bill.

Mr. Mills: I will try on all occasions, Mr. Speaker, to avoid anything of

the traditions of Parnell. I merely say that on this occasion the House listened to the hon. Member with great tolerance and I certainly do not wish to raise the temperature. I merely conclude, as I began, by expressing my good wishes to the people of Bermuda on independence.

10.36 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: When this matter was debated in the House last week I was in Committee upstairs, and I would not have intervened in these discussions—because I am no expert on Bermuda and have never been there—had not my reading of HANSARD over the weekend persuaded me that some general principles were involved in this decision. It is not a decision which can be regarded as one which has no effect outside Bermuda, because whatever decision is taken by this House is the responsibility of this House.
Therefore, we are all responsible for what happens in any legislation to which we are party. We cannot slide out by saying, "I know nothing about Bermuda. Bermuda is nothing to do with me. Therefore, what happens in this connection is not my responsibility and I am not concerned with it." We have a responsibility and we are concerned. Therefore, when I read HANSARD over the weekend and saw that there were some general issues, I intended to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to answer certain questions.
I have, however, been anticipated in some degree by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in his entertaining and instructive speech. Therefore, it is not necessary to ask some of those questions, because he has already asked them and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will reply to them in due course. They are important questions.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said on 14th June, repeating her words from an earlier occasion:
Any constitution is an interim constitution. I think that you must regard constitutional development as a steady process. Bermuda's new constitution is a very big advance on the previous one. It will be a good thing if people are interested enough to discuss how it will evolve further. If there is a demand"—
this is the point—
for further change, then further change will no doubt occur.


My hon. Friend added that
Frankly I do not think one could put the position more fairly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 484.]
I do not quarrel with that—it is fair enough—but it is rather less than positive. My hon. Friend said:
…then further change will no doubt occur.
What we would like to know is how further change will occur. What about the responsibilities of this House in relation to further change? Some of the questions are not absolutely clear, because I have read the Bill and it seems to suggest that the responsibility for ensuring further change will rest with us in the House of Commons. What degree of responsibility will it be?
It seems to me that there is danger in establishing a constitution in which a certain party has a privileged position. I have not known of any constitution in which a certain group which has been established in a privileged position has readily given up its privileges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West has pointed out, privileges were established in Northern Ireland for a certain group, in that case a religious group. The question to which one addresses oneself on this occasion is whether the privileges which are being established in the Bermuda Constitution—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must leave Northern Ireland out of this. I have prevented even hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies from talking about it.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of talking about Northern Ireland. I was asking simply whether the privileges being established in this Constitution—because I do not think that anyone would argue—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was making an assertion which could lead to a debate on Northern Ireland, all of which would be out of order.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about Northern Ireland. I am talking about Bermuda and the Report of the Boundaries Commission under the Boundaries Act, 1967. I am pointing out that paragraph 6 of that Report shows that the effect of the terms laid down

by the Conference majority Report are, generally speaking, to make working class and coloured constituencies almost four times the size of wealthy and white ones. That creates a privileged group in Bermuda, and I am asking what provision there is in the Bill to ensure that that privileged group does not decide to hang on to its privileges, as is the custom among privileged groups throughout the world. The fact that this occurs in Northern Ireland is merely an example.
I turn now to a point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) in a well-informed speech and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), who said:
The second most important aspect of the Report is the promise of consultations to widen the basis of candidature. At present—and this is a most extraordinary aspect of the undemocratic system in Bermuda—all public servants are debarred from standing for the House of Assembly.
That is an extraordinary state of affairs. In paragraph 15 of the Report of the Constitutional Conference it is said that:
The Conference agreed that the present law by which all persons paid from public funds are disqualified from membership of the Legislature should be reconsidered. The United Bermuda Party representatives said that their Party would consult with the Progressive Labour Party and the Independents in the House of Assembly on this matter with a view to the alteration of the law.
That alteration has not taken place. What we should like to know is whether it is to take place. The words,
with a view to the alteration of the law
are important in that connection.
My I remind hon. Members of the Motion which was signed by a number of hon. Members of this House, saying:
That this House will decline to enact any legislation enabling additional powers to be granted to the Legislature of the Colony of Bermuda until such time as that Legislature has provided by law that the House of Assembly of the Island shall be composed of members elected from constituencies of approximately equal population delimited without regard to colour or social status.
That has not happened, but we are asked, in other words, to do precisely what that Motion said we would not do. If we are to do it, we must be assured that what we want to see comes about,


and that it is fairly well assured in the Bill that it will come about.
We cannot see precisely what the Order in Council says, because we have not got it. It would have been happier if we had had it. We are told what it will say, but in the present situation the precise wording is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking asked whether the House will have an opportunity of debating the Order in Council itself. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will reply to that question later on if the opportunity is given to her, as I am sure that it will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West pointed out that
Clause 1(4) of the Bill seems quite straightforward in its provision that Orders in Council will be laid before Parliament so that we shall be able to look at some of these settlements later".
But is that the case? It seems to me that that is a most important question, but it is one which is in doubt. I would not press it if I did not think that it was in doubt, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to reassure us.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the fact that public servants will not be able to offer themselves for election. It is not only a question of higher civil servants, which one might understand in a small community, because one can appreciate that higher civil servants would find it difficult to stand for Parliament, and the decision that public servants above a certain level should not stand would have justification. However, I understand that it applies to such people as teachers, bus drivers and conductors, and certain manual workers in the direct employ of the State. If that is so, it is going altogether too far.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine), paragraph 6 of the Report of the Constitutional Conference says:
There was general agreement, the Progressive Labour Party representatives dissenting, that all shades of political opinion in Bermuda were represented at the Conference.
He went on:
… it is clear that there was general agreement at the conference that all shades of political opinion were represented.

He left out the reference to the Progressive Labour Party's dissent from that agreement, and that dissent is an important factor. After all, it is that party which believes that it would secure power in the island if the Constitution were a fair and equal one and not only one man, one vote, which it is, but one man, one equal vote.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has said that considerable progress has been made. Some of the votes of the coloured population have been increased in value. I understand that they are something of the order of one-tenth of the value of the vote of a white person, and they are to be increased to about one-third. If we are to accept a proposition of that sort, we must be sure that, eventually, one man, one vote means as nearly as possible, one man, one equal vote.
Even in our own community, votes cannot be completely equal. From time to time, we have to alter boundaries to restore reasonable equity throughout the country. But what assurance have we that a similar view would be taken in Bermuda of the necessity to march towards equity as that taken in our own country? That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) when he said:
What hon. Members on this side of the House are trying to get clear is that if the party representing the majority of the popular vote, which may have only a minority of members in the new Legislation, want change the British Government will consider it even if the majority of members are still reluctant to go any further forward.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State will do us all a great service if she replies to that point, as I am sure that she will.
I want finally to comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth). I am sorry that he is not here this morning, because I take amiss the reference which he made to Mr. Geoffrey Bing. He said:
… his rôle in Africa, from which he did not dissociate himself—he was thrown out after the changes in Ghana—makes him very suspect."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 14th June, 1967, Vol. 748, c. 494, 502, 507, 512, 517.]
The reason for my hon. Friend saying that is that Mr. Bing is constitutional adviser to the Progressive Labour Party. It was unfortunate that that remark


should have been made, because Mr. Bing was at one time a distinguished Member of this House. He is still a member of the Labour Party, he is a Queen's Counsel and a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George.
Mr. Bing is a leading barrister, and the point should be made that while he was in Ghana he was a civil servant. The position of the Attorney-Genera] there is not a political appointment, as in this House, and I believe that this has given rise to a great deal of confusion about his rôle in Ghana.
It is regrettable that my hon. Friend should have made these references, and I hope that when he sees what I have said and looks into the position which Mr. Bing occupied in Ghana, and possibly when he reads Mr. Bing's forthcoming book he will see fit to withdraw them, because if the position was that every civil servant was responsible for the actions of the Government which he advises civil servants would indeed be in a difficult position, and some gentlemen in that box would soon be in some other box rather than that one.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not call attention to the presence of any stranger.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I accept your Ruling entirely. You are, as always, absolutely right. Hiving made the remarks that I wanted to make, and having asked the questions that I wanted to ask, I propose to sit down, and I look forward to hearing the answers in due course.

10.51 a.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I welcome the opportunity to relieve the anxieties of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in connection with Clause 1(2). He was worried about the possible future operation of a Convention, and in this connection he referred to Section 75 of another Act. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Section 75 does not stand on its own, but has to be seen in the context of Section 1(2) of the Ireland Act, 1949, and specific declarations by several Prime Ministers and other senior Ministers of the House since then. I therefore think that the hon. Gentleman was making a false comparison, and that he need have no worries on that score.
Finally, I add my voice to those who have wished the Bill a smooth passage. I hope that there is nothing in it—in fact, I am sure there is not—which will ever lead to the election of a member of the Legislature there who will use even a sporting occasion to utter sentences of bigotry and intolerance and be condemned for uttering them in such terms not only by members of my party but by members of the Labour Party, as was the hon. Member for Belfast, West.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is getting beyond the Bermuda Bill.

10.53 a.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: Unfortunately, like my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), I, too, was delayed in a Committee last week when this Measure was debated and, therefore, was not able to attend, but I have had made available to me all the necessary documents, including the relevant copy of HANSARD, and I therefore feel that I am fully acquainted with what has taken place so far.
During the debate last week the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) said,
We in this House would be very foolish if we were to encourage any steps that would damage such a notable achievement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1967; Vol. 748. c. 486.]
He was referring to what he called the economic advance of Bermuda and the standard of living there, which he said compared favourably with that of Canada and the United States of America. This is true, and I accept it. Likewise, we would be very foolish to endorse a constitution which prevented further advance or placed difficulties and sanctions in the way of it and put the constitution in the hands of people who might be able to use it for their own ends.
I would like now to discuss what seems to me to be a contradiction in the attitudes towards the standard of living there, as expressed by one or two hon. Members last week. Reference was made to this in the Daily Telegraph recently and the problem was foreseen by Mr. Creech Jones, in 1947, when he asked for a system of direct taxation for Bermuda to alleviate the poverty which he could see would not be alleviated without some change in the structure.
In October, 1966, just before the constitutional conference, the Daily Telegraph carried an article which said:
There are no old-age pensions, no low-cost housing schemes, no unemployment insurance. The level of education is very low by British standards, and trade unions are only slowly being accepted …
Negroes feel at a disadvantage in getting jobs, and claim that the Board of Immigration admits unskilled volunteers too easily …
The population is now 48,000 and is growing …
There is no income tax, no estate duties, no profits tax, and no laws against monopolies.
If U.B.P. gets its own way in the coming constitutional talks, particularly on the electoral boundaries issue, the present system will ossify and the grip of the oligarchy will tighten.
As I read the Constitution which we are being asked to endorse—and I hope that my hon. Friend will clarify this when she replies—it seems that the proposed new Upper Chamber will have the power to veto any taxation Bill which it is desired to introduce. If this is so, it seems that we shall be bequeathing to Bermuda a constitution which will militate against economic advancement and against the policies of a Labour Party, or any progressive party, which comes to power and wishes to change the taxation laws.
I propose next to deal with the question of the Boundaries Commission to which reference has already been made. One of the most important things in an electoral and voting system is that, as far as possible, there is equality in how people vote, and how their votes are expressed. This should cut across class and race. Much discussion has taken place on these proposed new boundaries, and from my reading of the minutes of the House of Assembly it appears that there is a good deal of doubt among those who first made these suggestions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, at the conference 11 Members of the House of Assembly signed the majority Report, three submitted a minority Report, and one member abstained. When the final boundaries were presented to the House of Assembly, of the original 11 who voted for them two voted against, Mr. Francis and Mr. Ratteray, and two abstained. One can hardy say, therefore,

that the proposal was carried even by a majority of the Members who first made the recommendations.
When the matter was considered in the Assembly, of the 36 Members one, the Chairman of the Committee, did not vote, 16, plus the Speaker, voted for the recommendation, nine voted against, and nine abstained. I therefore think that when we are bequeathing a Constitution to a country bent on independence we want to be sure that all the people who will have to operate it and serve under it are assured that it is workable and is not likely to militate against the interests of certain sections of the community. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with this, too, when she replies to the debate.
I want now to come back to the question of registration, because this is something which forms the basis of an electoral system. If we are not talking about democracy in Bermuda, what I am about to say does not apply. If we are merely talking about the easiest, and perhaps the cheapest, method of getting people on to the electoral register, and we are not concerned with democracy, my comments are not applicable, but if we are concerned, as I think we should be, with handing Bermuda a Constitution which is democratic, and which will involve as near as possible the majority of the electors, then the way in which the register is compiled is of paramount importance.
It has already been pointed out that because of the criticisms made of the method of registration the recommendation of the Progressive Labour Party was accepted by the Conference and it was agreed that somebody should go out from this country to decide upon the adoption of a registration system based on ours. Mr. Hucks went out and interpreted his terms of reference not from the point of view of changing the system of registration to a system like that operating here, but merely suggesting changes in the present structure in Bermuda in order to ensure that it included a few more people. It is fair to him to point out that he made certain suggestions on those lines. I ask my hon. Friend whether those suggestions will be endorsed and included in the Constitution, because we have no news about that point.
The important consideration in this respect is the difference between an automatic system and a voluntary system


of registration. We have an automatic system, which is endorsed by authority. Forms are sent to people and they are asked to fill them in. If they are not completed, other people are employed to assist them in filling in the forms, in order that, as far as possible, the maximum effort is put into ensuring that the names of all those who are entitled to vote are put on the register.
In Bermuda there is a voluntary system, relying on individuals to make an effort to register in order to become eligible to vote. In such circumstances political parties have two campaigns to fight—one to ensure that their supporters' names get on to the register and then the normal fight to make sure that their supporters vote at elections. In such circumstances an important point to consider is the relative ability of various political parties to afford the added expense and inconvenience of making sure that their supporters are on the register. In agreeing to this Constitution we must try to ensure that the best method of registration is put into operation—and the method which every hon. Member considers to be the most workable and acceptable is that which operates in this country.
Another point relating to the question of a voluntary system is raised in the article in the Daily Telegraph to which I have already referred. It says:
The banks are private and locally controlled.
The article goes on to say that
The general manager of the Bank of Bermuda is Sir Henry Tucker, Parliamentary leader of the U.B.P., who is also a director of the Bermuda Electric Light Company and of the Bermuda Telephone Company, and chairman of the Bermuda Broadcasting Company.
Front Street is feared by the mass of the people. It takes a brave man with an overdraft or a mortgage to defy the oligarchy. Opposition by the Press is quickly slapped down. Recently a newspaper published an article mildly criticising the U.D.P The Editor was sharply reprimanded.
It points out the fears of many people about voluntary registration and says that it would be preferable and much wiser to have a system of automatic registration, under which such circumstances could not arise, whether they be imaginary or factual. As far as I can make out they are factual.
When my hon. Friend replies perhaps she will tell us whether the recommendations made by Mr. Hucks, for a policy which would ensure an increase in the number of people registered, have been accepted and will be put into operation.
The other point on which the conference was promised a report concerned the question of the payment of members, which is very important. If members are not paid Parliament becomes dominated by a section of the population which can afford to pay the cost of being members of Parliament. That is why we introduced payment in this country. Some people would like us to introduce a system of payment for members of local authorities, on the same argument, namely, that it is more difficult for people who have no independent means to become members. In the case of Bermuda, such people who have to rely on the good will of their employers to allow them time off to attend meetings of the Assembly should they become elected.
I understood that talks regarding the payment of members would be held and that recommendations would be made. If it is not clear to what extent the question of payment of members will be endorsed we are in danger of endorsing a constitution which militates against the democratic development of Bermuda and the democratic rights of its people not only to vote but to become candidates.
The question of people standing as candidates has also been raised. We are told that public servants cannot stand for the Assembly—although it was agreed that all-party talks would be held in order to decide how best to deal with this question. I have here a quotation from the Bermuda Sun of May, 1967 dealing with a school teacher who voted Conservative when in England. He wished to stand in Bermuda, and he said:
A teacher has to give his employer three months' notice to make sure that he is not being paid out of the public treasury at the time of nomination. I think we should have the same system as in England that anyone should be free to stand as a candidate. …
In the light of all the points that have been put forward it is clear that much more explanation is required about the interpretation of the Constitution. Once this Bill is passed Britain loses responsibility and future intervention becomes very difficult.
Another cause for confusion arises in connection with the classification created in respect of Bermuda called "Bermuda status". In order to be nominated one must either be born in Bermuda or possess Bermuda status. I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to the relevant figures because it seems to me that Bermuda status is reserved for white people. Since the establishment of this qualification 700 white people have been granted it and six coloured people. Two of the coloured people are Dr. King and Mr. Richards, who are well known supporters of the U.D.P. If Bermuda status is to be one of the qualifications for standing for Parliament we need an explanation why 700 white people have achieved it as opposed to only 6 coloured people.
This country has a tremendous responsibility in endorsing a Constitution which will usher in independence for another country. We have a responsibility to see that what we endorse is, as far as possible, as good and valid as the system under which this country operates. If it is not, we ought to think again about the matter and consider some of the points mentioned by other hon. Members and myself, in order to make sure that when the Constitution is endorsed we can be confident that it will operate democratically and will serve the interests of all the people, irrespective of class or race.

11.10 a.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman has spoken already and has no right to a second speech. Erskine May indicates that it is normal to allow a second speech to the Minister, but only to other Members under special circumstances. If the House signifies its pleasure, the hon. Gentleman may speak again of course.

Sir F. Bennett: On a point of order. I had hoped to speak for only a couple of minutes this morning, because the circumstances are a little unusual, in that a number of speeches from the opposite benches have been directed against points of view expressed by the Opposition, supporting a Government Bill. I am not referring only to this morning's debate but also to last week's debate. If I were allowed to say a few words it would

be simply to deal with these points and in no way to impinge upon the Minister's right to reply to the debate. I am perfectly willing to bow to the wishes of the House in this matter if there is any strong feeling against my speaking again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sir Frederic Bennett.

Sir F. Bennett: As I said in my point of order, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak again, it would be wrong of me to seek to usurp the Minister's right of reply in this matter. This is a Government Bill, which has received general support from the Opposition.
There are two points which I would like to make. This morning the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said that we on this side of the House had made the point that tensions had been rising recently, and that we had added that they were not present some time ago. In a rather contradictory way he went on to admit that the franchise had been rapidly extended in recent years, but added that it was the lack of a suitable franchise which had caused the extensions. Yet he said that the extensions were taking place, thus meeting his own earlier point.
Some of us have been criticised for comparing conditions in United Kingdom constituencies and the Bermudan constituencies. I would like to quote here no less an authority than the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), a former Colonial Secretary. In an Oral Reply of 20th December, 1966, to a Question he said:
The arrangements we arrived at at the conference
as regards the franchise
have brought about a situation in which there will be far and away greater equality in voting than there has ever been before, and I would venture to say, far greater equality than there is in Britain at the moment"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1966; Vol. 738, c. 1150.]
I want to raise a point about our interpretations of the racial tensions we made from these benches last week. It has never been our thought that tourism would be deterred just by riot or actual racial strife. Fortunately, this is almost unthinkable in the Bermuda of today. What we have been seeking to say, and


I think the Minister will understand and appreciate this, is that even an atmosphere of racial tension and atmosphere of unfriendliness between the two races reflects itself in the welcome that the tourist gets, and it could do a great deal of harm to Bermuda's economy if there is felt to be a simmering tension between the two races.
I praise the Government for reaching this negotiated settlement. It is unfair to suggest that they could have achieved more by some mandatory authority. It is no good this country abandoning the pretence of being a great imperial power, able to inflict our will wherever we like overseas in one context, and then attempting to assert it in another. It will be see that anything other than a negotiated settlement would have been impossible for any Minister if we look at the position in Bermuda. To talk of imposing a settlement is wholly unreal.
Economically, Bermuda is completely secure and independent. She needs no help from us. In fact the boot is on the other foot, in that she is a very valuable and significant contributor to the hard currency reserves of the sterling area. We have, therefore, no economic hold, and it will be seen that we can have no political hold either. If we look at her geographical position, and the American base situation on the island, can anyone imagine that we are in a position by force to impose a settlement against the will of the Bermudan people?
The Ministers concerned have done a good job, and while one hopes to see further advances, they can only be made by ties of mutual confidence and friendship between us and Bermuda, because these are the only means that we have left.

11.15 a.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart): With the leave of the House, I would like to reply to a number of points raised.
We can all agree that this has been an extremely interesting debate. Before I turn to the various points I would like to say how glad I am that the House has shown itself so very sincerely concerned about the future of Bermuda. Concern has particularly been expressed for the rights of the coloured people there, and guarantees that there can be further constitutional progress have been

asked for. I am very glad that so many people who have visited Bermuda and who know it so well have taken part in the debate. It has been very well informed and very valuable.
May I take the further point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), who spoke about taxation Bills. She was worried that under the new Constitution the Upper House would have stronger powers in relation to such Bills. She is under a slight misapprehension here. At present—before the new Constitution comes into existence—a taxation or any other Bill must be passed by the Upper House if it is to become law. Under the new Constitution, the Upper House will lose this power of veto and there will be a strengthening of the Lower House.
The powers of the Upper House will be limited only to a power of delay. In the case of taxation Bills, it will be possible to present these to the Governor for assent notwithstanding objection by the Upper House, if they are passed twice in two successive Sessions by the House of Assembly, and if the period between their passage on each occasion by that House is not less than one year. I can, therefore, completely allay my hon. Friend's anxiety on this point. The position will be very much improved.
The purpose of the Bill, in general, is to enable the new Constitution to be established by an Order in Council. I ought to dispose of a misapprehension, held by the hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who talked about this being a Bermuda (Independence) Bill. If it were, it would obviously put our debate in a very different light. This is to enable an Order in Council to be made to create a new Constitution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has sent me a message to say how sorry he is that he cannot be here because he is not well and is at home. He asked whether the Order in Council governing the Constitution would be debatable. Other hon. Members have raised this, too, and it has been suggested that this would be desirable because, in the drafting of the Order, changes might be made in the decisions of a constitutional conference as set out in the Conference Report. I must assure the House very positively that the Order


in Council will be drafted to reflect precisely the decisions of the Conference, as set out in Appendix A of the Report.
This is always the case when an Order in Council is made following a Bill which follows a constitutional conference. The Order in Council, as is the normal practice with Orders making provision for the constitutions of Colonial Territories, will be laid before Parliament before being made and will not be subject to affirmative or negative Resolution.

Sir F. Bennett: Even if it were debatable, it would only be a question of refusing or accepting it. We would not be able to amend it.

Mrs. Hart: This is the kind of Constitutional Order which is made by Her Majesty in Council. When it is made, it is made, and that is that. That is why it is imperative from the point of view of the House of Commons that such Orders should reflect, as they always do, precisely what the House has before it by way of appendices to constitutional conferences, saying what will be in the Constitution.
A point was raised last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) about the choice of the expert on registration who visited Bermuda last March. The expert who went out had served with great distinction, not in the Colonial Office, as one or two of my hon. Friends seemed to think, but in the Colonial Service overseas. He had experience of advising the Governments of several widely differing countries on registration methods, including Mauritius and St. Vincent.
A suggestion was discussed at the Constitutional Conference that the registration system in Bermuda should be changed to the kind of system used in this country. But there was no convincing evidence that the present system operated unfairly. Indeed, an undertaking was given at the Constitutional Conference in these words:
Moreover, in order to meet the criticism by the Progressive Labour Party representatives that the existing system of registration resulted in many qualified persons not being registered, the Secretary of State offered to send an expert to Bermuda to see what improvements could be made to the existing registration system.

There were no apprehensions about this matter. The job of the registration expert was to advise on improvements to the existing system, but not on whether there should be a new system. It may well be that there are misapprehensions about this on the part of some of the members of the P.L.P. who have not looked back to that paragraph in the Report.
The expert's report is being considered by the Select Committee of the Bermuda Legislature. I think that we chose the right kind of specialist, and that someone experienced in registration in this country would not have been able to contribute half as much to the solution of the problems presented by Bermuda.
I come now to the question about whether public servants are allowed to stand for election to the House of Assembly. We have to be very clear about this. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough or my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who said that a letter had been received from somebody saying that the system should be the same as the system in this country and that everyone should be able to stand for election. In this country higher civil servants may not stand for election to Parliament. Local government servants may not stand for election to the council by which they are employed. Therefore, there is a number of quite severe restrictions in this country as to who may stand for election.
In such a country as Bermuda, and in a number of dependent territories and new independencies, almost all the public service work is carried out by direct employees of the Government and not by local authority employees. It looks as though the principle in this country that civil servants may not stand for election to the House of Commons is bound to extend. However, there was a case for considering whether it might be possible to work out a way of changing the system.
Therefore, the Bermuda Select Committee was set up. It was considering whether there might be exceptions to a general disqualification. It was considering the local law and its implications. I emphasise that this kind of question is invariably left to local legislation.
The British Parliament would not legislate for a colony which had a degree of self-government. We have sent to the Governor information about the practice elsewhere. That information is to the effect that it is almost invariably the practice that civil servants in Commonwealth countries, both independent and dependent, are excluded from membership of the Legislature. It is not unprecedented for school teachers paid from government funds to have to resign their appointment if elected to membership of the legislature. This is the situation in Trinidad and Kenya.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would my hon. Friend deal with the point which I made? I accept that a line must be drawn somewhere, but it appears to be drawn so widely as to exclude everybody who works for the Government in any respect. It appears to exclude such people as bus conductors and even some manual workers. Is there not a strong case for saying that that line should be drawn very much higher than appears to be the case now?

Mrs. Hart: That is a question which is being considered by the Select Committee in Bermuda. It is a matter within the competence and powers of the local Parliament. It is not a matter for us. I know that I have clashed with several of my hon. Friends on this very point. Those who argue that certain things are being done wrongly in a dependent territory and, therefore, ask that the British House of Commons should legislate to change them are the first people to argue for self-government for dependent territories. They cannot have it both ways.
If my hon. Friends are prepared to say that Bermuda should not advance any degree whatsoever along the road to self-government and should return to being directly ruled in every detail by the House of Commons and civil servants in London, let them say so. But, unless they say so, they cannot argue that we should legislate in a matter which is correctly within the competence of a self-governing body.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend has mistaken the point. What we are suggesting is that when countries are encouraged to march along the path of self-government they should be encouraged to follow the right path and not the wrong path.

Mrs. Hart: This is where we get involved in the more fundamental question of the constitution and the relationship between the British House of Commons and the Government of Bermuda. My hon. Friends may say that if they had been members of the Select Committee in Bermuda they would have urged that different recommendations should be made. But, unless they are prepared to say that power should be taken away from the Bermuda House of Assembly, they cannot argue that we should legislate and impose our will in a matter which is for the local Parliament. I will turn to the general question of the Constitution in a moment.
The main purpose of the Bill is to extend the powers of Her Majesty in Council so that a new Constitution, which includes the approved constituency arrangements which were agreed at last year's Conference, can be incorporated in an Order in Council. The Boundaries Commission was, again, reporting not to this Government but to the Government of Bermuda, and this is why I certainly could not accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking that we should have ensured that copies of the Commission's report were available in the Vote Office. They are not Parliamentary Papers for this House of Commons, but Parliamentary Papers for the House of Assembly in Bermuda. The same point arises. Here was a body reporting to the Members of the House of Assembly out there and not to Members of this House, so that the copies placed in the Library were for the information of hon. Members—I am glad that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) made sure that he got a copy for himself; he is one up on everyone else there—and to have had copies available in the Vote Office would not have been relevant.
The Report of the Boundaries Commission has been accepted by the House of Assembly in Bermuda. There has been a good deal of discussion of its contents and the attitudes of many members in the Legislature in Bermuda to it. The Report was unanimous in respect of the constituency boundaries to be drawn within eight of the nine parishes —and the eight included Pembroke Parish. It is true that the P.L.P. representative on the Commission submitted a minority Report in respect of the boundary in the parish of Devonshire, but the


P.L.P. amendment, based on its representative's minority Report—and these are the actual figures—was defeated in the House of Assembly by 16 votes to 6, and the majority Report was adopted by 17 votes to 9.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I would remind my hon. Friend that the figures she has just quoted show that less than half the Members of the House of Assembly voted in favour.

Mrs. Hart: I would remind by hon. Friend that that is often the case with quite important Bills going through this House of Commons.
The voting figures were not unusual in respect of the Boundaries Commission report as compared with voting figures on matters of equal importance that go through the House of Assembly in Bermuda. On constitutional grounds, the numbers attending the debate and the numbers of those who actually vote is not of constitutional relevance to the validity of a Bill that is accepted by the House.

Miss Lestor: This is a very important matter. My hon. Friend has said that 17—that is, 16 plus the Speaker—voted in favour, and that nine voted against, but, in fact, nine abstained. It was not a question of their not being there—they abstained. That is the relevant point. Further, there was a change in the voting of those who originally endorsed the boundaries but who later reconsidered them in the House of Assembly.

Mrs. Hart: The question of abstention is extremely difficult, because it is not possible to say how many Members abstained deliberately and how many were not there. In fact, in some of our debates it is not always easy to decide who on this side of the House has abstained. One therefore cannot take that point as being valid.
The main criticism directed by the minority who voted against the Constitutional Conference conclusions, and the criticism that has been expressed by a number of my hon. Friends is criticism of the disparity between the electorates in the constituencies which, it has been said, results in coloured votes having less

value than white votes. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking said that
… if one was a coloured voter one's vote was worth one-ninth of the vote of a white man, now it would be worth one-third."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 496.]
I believe that there are complications here that have not been fully understood. I regret this emphasis on race, which I am glad to note was not a feature of the letter of the leader of the P.L.P. published in The Times last November.
The implication is that the parish of Pembroke contained only coloured voters. That is not so. It contains, it is true, a larger number of coloured voters than any other parish but it should be said that about 35 per cent. of the voters of Pembroke are white—a much larger number of white voters than in any other parish. Moreover, the parishes with the smallest numbers of voters are not parishes with white majorities. The figures given in the P.L.P. memorandum to the Conference show that the two parishes with the smallest number of registered voters, according to the 1966 Register, are Southampton and Hamilton, both of which have coloured majorities. Indeed, only two parishes have white majorities—the other seven have coloured majorities—yet the adult white population is about 40 per cent. of the whole adult population.
While it cannot, of course, be denied that constituencies in Bermuda, though improved under the Boundaries Commission report, will contain an unequal number of voters, but it is misleading to suggest that the inequalities are all at the expense of the coloured people. It is significant that at the last election there was a majority of constituencies in which the coloured voter predominated. The results of that election proved that there has been no really strong tendency for Bermudians to vote on a colour basis.
The degree to which the coloured Member represents what some of his coloured voters wish him to represent is, of course, another matter, but there has not been a sharp racial electoral division in regard to the people elected to the House of Assembly. There will still be imperfections in the degree to which there is true representation of the coloured


voter in the House of Assembly, but the important question is what opportunities may exist in the future if it should be felt in Bermuda that there should be a further change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland), whose remarks were underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, said:
What hon. Members on this side of the House are trying to get clear is that if the party representing the majority of the popular vote, which may have only a minority of members in the new Legislature, want change the British Government will consider it even if the majority of members are still reluctant to go any further forward."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th June. 1967; Vol. 748, c. 512.]
In reply to my hon. Friend, I make it quite clear that if, after the next elections in Bermuda under the new Constitution, there were a demand for constitutional change the Government would certainly consider it. In other words, it does not have to be a request made by the electors of the majority party, and it does not have to be the majority party only in the House of Assembly which asks us to consider further changes to be considered. If the P.L.P., after the next election, says that we should look again at this matter, we shall consider that request although, obviously, I cannot give a free commitment because one does not know just what the request might be.
Having given that assurance, which I trust will allay the anxieties of my hon. Friends—and I well understand those anxieties, as I think that we have a very great feeling of responsibility for ensuring that things move smoothly forward in Bermuda—let me make a simple point. The new Constitution that will be established under the Order in Council that will follow this Bill will, if anything, give this House of Commons more opportunities in regard to what happens in Bermuda rather than fewer, because to the extent that the Constitution will tidy up a number of the present anomalies while not, at the same time introducing any striking new advances in self-government other than those outlined in the White Paper, this House will still have the unimpaired advantage of the ability to comment on matters in Bermuda, to comment on progress towards racial equality in Bermuda.
On the question of racial tension in Bermuda, I say, very seriously indeed, just one thing. It is possible to have white people in a community who try to stay too white for too long. I think that this danger has now receded in Bermuda because there is a real awareness on the part of the white people that a multiracial community has to be built up. At the same time, it is possible for the reactions of a coloured majority to be extremely strong.
What I hope will be avoided in Bermuda is the trend among not all but some part of the P.L.P. to fight for their policies on purely racialist grounds. I hope that that will not gain ground. I can understand it if it does. I can well understand the kind of motivation which leads to a party fighting for people of its own race to develop this predominantly political awareness. The influence of the American Civil Rights movement and particularly the more extreme elements of that movement have to be regarded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said last week that the P.L.P. recently held a meeting in Bermuda at which all whites were asked to leave. I have checked this and found it to be true. I can understand how this happens, but I do not think that it is best either for the P.L.P. or for the people it represents. It can be possible to build up a multi-racial society in Bermuda without the tensions and dangers which have been mentioned but the tricky point is whether the chance to create such a community is taken or whether people will put too much emphasis on racial politics.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to say how much I agree with what she has been saying, but I wish to have clarification on a point she made earlier. She said that any question of a change in the Constitution could be brought to the Parliament of this country. Suppose there were a question, not so much of a change in the Constitution, but concerning the size and shape of constituencies. Would it be a matter to be considered here or by the Government of Bermuda?

Mrs. Hart: This is an open-ended question. If, after the next election, either of the parties said that it wanted to discuss the Constitution again and that


the question of constituencies should be looked at particularly, it would be for the British Government to decide whether or not the points put to the British Government were valid and whether they demanded acceptance or discussion.
Then it would be for the British Government, as on the last occasion, perhaps to propose that another boundaries commission should be set up with certain terms of reference. The terms of reference would be important and they would probably lead to another constitutional conference. This would be the responsibility of the Government here and of the Parliament in Bermuda.
I hope that the House will accord a Second Reading to the Bill on the clear understanding that, in spite of the Motion which a number of my hon. Friends have signed, if they refrained from giving a Second Reading to the Bill they would be holding back developments which they wished to see in Bermuda and, secondly, refraining from giving this House the degree of responsibility for constitutional development in Bermuda which they wished to see and which the Bill would allow the House to establish.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: In her winding-up speech, my hon. Friend the Minister of State made one or two declarations of great importance which perhaps could have been better made when she introduced the Bill. She made quite clear that the Order in Council will follow in most scrupulous detail the recommendations of the Constitutional Conference. What we are deciding today is not merely to give this Bill a Second Reading, but to put into effect by Order in Council any recommendations of the Constitutional Conference. It will be too late to make any changes in the constitutional arrangements except to the extent of the concession my hon. Friend made.
My hon. Friend announced that the British Government will listen to P.L.P. or any other representations which may be made after the election has taken place, based on the new Constitution. I interpret that to mean that the Government of the United Kingdom will use the powers in Clause 1(2) by which the British Government may vary or revoke

any law relating to the Government of Bermuda
and made by the Legislature. We have very important reserve powers which will enable the British Government, if they wish, to make whatever changes in the Constitution they may consider desirable or necessary.
To that extent my hon. Friend is right in saying that the Bill will give the House of Commons more power than it has at present. That will be a little consolation to my hon. Friends who have rightly expressed doubts which have been ventilated in the debate. With some small degree of satisfaction, I welcome my hon. Friend's statement that the Bill gives the House more powers in respect of the new Government to be set up in Bermuda.
I hope that the P.L.P. will have some of its fears removed because this the final word will not have been spoken when the Bill goes on to the Statute Book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.47 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to make funds available for the Public Works Loans Commissioners to lend to local authorities and certain other bodies after the funds made available by the Public Works Loans Act, 1966, run out. As background to this it may be helpful if I remind the House of the present arrangements for local authority borrowing from the Exchequer. Hon. Members will not want me to go into the history of local authority borrowing since the targets of the White Paper published in October 1963 have not been achieved. It is sufficient to say that the demands for finance from the Board have been rising much more quickly than the 1963 White Paper envisaged.
This is only partly because the capital expenditure of local authorities has been


rising. Most of the unexpected increase has represented longer-term borrowing required to refinance maturing debts. The restrictions on the amount of temporary borrowing by local authorities have, as intended, led to a certain amount of this refinancing. In addition, particularly last year when interest rates were rising, some of the holders of longer-term debt took advantage of "break" clauses in order prematurely to call in loans to local authorities and re-lend at higher rates of interest, and this rebormwing usually qualified for quota.
In 1965 we were able to increase the percentage of longer-term borrowing available from the Public Works Loan Board from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. for all authorities; and for authorities in Scotland, Wales and the Northern and North Western Regions we raised the percentage to 40 per cent. But the result of that increase, with the unexpectedly high requirements of local authorities for financing, brought the cost to the Exchequer for 1965–66 up to the level which the 1963 White Paper had expected would be reached only in 1967–68.
In the economic circumstances of the last two years, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not felt able to increase the burden placed on the Exchequer by lending to local authorities. Accordingly, for 1966–67 the percentages for access remained at the figures established in 1965. This year, as the House will know from my right hon. Friend's Budget statement and from the White Paper on Consolidated Fund lending, we have introduced new formulae for calculating access to the P.W.L.B.
After consultation with local authority associations, we have decided to change to a formula under which access to the Board is related to capital payments rather than to borrowing requirements. This change of formula need not, in itself, affect the amount which local authorities borrow from the Board—it depends on the percentage allowed under the new formula—and with the new formula it will be easier to predict the call on the Exchequer.
In his Budget my right hon. Friend provided £480 million net for Exchequer issues to the P.W.L.B. in 1967–68. When account is taken of the repayments of existing loans, this will enable the Board to lend about £620 million this year,

which is about £100 million more than was provided for in last year's Budget and only very slightly less than local authorities borrowed from the Board during the year.
These figures will enable local authorities under the new formula to borrow 34 per cent. of their net capital payments from the Board during the year, and 44 per cent. in areas which enjoy the higher rate of access, to which Devon and Cornwall have now been added. By "net capital payments" I mean the actual capital payments less capital receipts and central Government grants and loans. The "minimum entitlement" to raise up to £100,000 from the Board remains. It will be remembered that that was introduced to meet particularly the problems of the smaller authorities.
There is also a new supplementary quota which allows local authorities to raise from the Board 30 per cent.—or 40 per cent. in areas which enjoy the higher rates of access—of the longer-term borrowing required for the purpose of complying with the restrictions on temporary borrowing. Local authorities have now been given until 31st March, 1969, to bring their temporary borrowing within the limits laid down in 1963.
At the present rate of lending, the funds provided by the Public Works Loans Act, 1966, which received the Royal Assent on 26th May last year, will be exhausted during or very shortly after the Summer Recess, and we therefore need to make further provision before the Recess so that the Board may continue lending to local authorities without interruption.
The first Clause of the Bill provides for a sum of £900 million to be put at the disposal of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. At the present rate of access, this should last until early in 1969. As with previous Acts, this Clause includes a subsection which permits the Board to undertake to make loans, the funds for which would be made available by a subsequent Act. This is necessary to ensure continuity of business and planning, and enables the Commissioners to enter into commitments of £50 million over and above the cash provided in the Bill.
The Clause contains one innovation. Hitherto, each Act came into operation


on the date of Royal Assent and any provision under a previous Act which had not been used by that date had lapsed and thus, in a sense, was "wasted". If this Bill were to come into force at the beginning of the Recess, as much as £100 million of the provision in the 1966 Act might be foregone. The Bill therefore provides that the Clause should come into effect on a day to be appointed by the Treasury instead of on the date of Royal Assent. This will enable the existing Act to continue in operation until the funds which it provides are exhausted. As I said, it is anticipated that that will be about the end of the Recess.
The second Clause contains purely technical provisions to amend some defects which have become apparent in the Public Works Loans Act, 1965. Section 2 of that Measure introduced a simpler borrowing procedure for local authorities, but it is defective in two respects. The first is that it does not take into account the fact that the Acts relating to some authorities contain lists of permitted methods of borrowing, thus raising the implication that other methods of borrowing are not open to these authorities. The effect of this has been that some authorities, including river authorities, have not been able to take advantage of the simplified borrowing procedure introduced by the 1965 Act but have had to continue to execute mortgage deeds. They have naturally asked that they should be able to adopt the simplified procedure, and I know that they will welcome the steps we are taking in this Measure to put the matter right.
The second defect occurs because Section 2(3) of the 1965 Act imposes an automatic charge on revenues in every case where an authority—other than those covered by the two Local Government Acts—borrows by agreement with the Board. For some of the authorities concerned, however, other legislation already provides for loans raised by them to be automatically charged on their revenues. Clause 2(2) of the Bill therefore limits the scope of Section 2(3) of the 1965 Act to those authorities whose legislation does not already provide for an automatic charge; and this subsection also contains a consequential extension to the definition of "automatic charge".
Clause 2(3) of the Bill amends paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the 1965 Act. This is a very technical point indeed and perhaps the House would prefer me to leave that until we come to consider the matter in Committee. If so, I need say no more about the contents of the Bill, although I should, perhaps, explain why the Bill is necessary at this time in view of my right hon. Friend's comment in his Budget Statement that he had instituted a general review of public sector borrowing arrangements. The answer is simply that the review will take some time to complete and that, even if it were to lead —and I do not know if it will—to proposals for changes in the arrangements for making funds available to, or borrowing by, local authorities from the P.W.L.B., legislation could not be introduced to give effect to such proposals until after the funds provided for P.W.L.B. lending in the 1966 Act are exhausted.
In these circumstances, and since we do not know what changes will emerge from the review, the only possible course is for us to ask Parliament to provide the necessary money to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to carry on their functions of lending to local authorities on the present basis for a further 18 months or so. This will not prevent us from introducing legislation in the meantime to give effect to any proposals that come out of the review, if it seems right to do so.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: My particular interest in the Bill is to know something about future trends of interest rates, which are so very high at the present time. The hon. and learned Gentleman has performed the extraordinary feat of talking about lending and asking the House to authorise the lending of £900 million to local authorities without saying a word about what the levels of interest rates are to be.

Mr. MacDermot: If the hon. Gentleman would like to make his own speech during the debate, I will seek to reply to any points he and other hon. Members make. However, there is no change contained in the Bill in the provisions relating to interest rates, and it did not seem necessary to me to make reference to them when moving the Second Reading of the Bill.
I am sure that all hon. Members will join with me in expressing thanks to the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the services which they have continued to render with such skill and, of course, on an entirely voluntary basis.

12 noon.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, this is the second time in a comparatively short period that we have been discussing the lending of about £900 million, or making it available, to local authorities. It is a great pity that we have these debates either on a Monday or on a Friday morning, because these are vast sums of money and those mornings are perhaps not times when most hon. Members are present.
We should look at the Bill from three points of view—those of the Treasury and the local authority, which it is our duty to do, and the point already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). But trying to look at it from the point of view of this last aspect—the future—is rather like looking into a crystal ball. I will deal, first, with the Treasury point of view.
The hon. and learned Gentleman gave a few details of the history which has led to the Bill. Since 1955, access to the Board has been restricted, and I think that, since that time, treasurers have learnt a great deal more than ever before about the methods of raising finance. But they have raised a great deal by short-term borrowing because, although they had raised a lot from institutional sources and private lenders, this was not sufficient for the increasing burdens which local authorities have to meet.
The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the history which led to the 1963 White Paper, which was a great turning point in financing for local authorities. By that time, a great deal of borrowing had been done in the short-term. I do not think that we can blame the local authorities. It was their job to borrow in the most advantageous way for their ratepayers. The 1963 White Paper set out to give greater access to the Board, in parallel—and this is the important point —with an agreement to reduce the amount of short-term debt.
There clearly was a quid pro quo that local authorities should have increasing

access to the Board-20 per cent. in the first year, 30 per cent. in the second, 40 per cent. in the third and 50 per cent. in the fourth—for long-term borrowings in parallel with a reduction in the short-term debt. This parallel commitment is important for us to realise when, later, we look at it from the point of view of the local authorities. There were certain de minimis provisions covering a large number of small local authorities.
I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the White Paper was quite clear that it expected by the end of the fourth year of the programme that the burden to the Exchequer would be about £500 million. In fact, that figure was reached by the end of the second year and I accept that the Treasury, therefore, had to look again at the arrangements in the White Paper. Indeed, the White Paper had forecast that something of that nature might happen.
It is interesting to look back on the figures to see how rapidly the calls rose on the Board. During the first year—the 20 per cent. year—the net issues were E209 million in the next, the 30 per cent. year, the net issues were £525 million. That stresses the point I have made—that, by the end of the second year, the quota which had been expected to be reached by the end of the fourth year had already been reached.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore announced certain changes in the plans which had been foreshadowed in the White Paper and we did not oppose them because we realised that they were brought about by a situation which had been envisaged at the time the White Paper was published. In paragraph 18 of the White Paper—although it appears to be in rather small print—it was pointed out that
If, for example, authorities were to reduce the length of their long-term borrowing it would bring forward their demands on the Board and it might become necessary to implement the arrangements more gradually.
That, apparently, is what we did last year. The increase in the quota was not forthcoming except for development areas and the Chancellor made certain changes in the long-term borrowing definition. Until that time, one-year borrowing had ranked for quota. Obviously, the local authorities, doing their best, increased comparatively short-term borrowings—


the amount of borrowing from one to two years—in order to be able to increase the quota they were getting from the Board.
This was a change which the Chancellor made last year, and so one-year borrowings last year no longer rank for quota. There was a great deal of activity on the margin of local authorities which borrowed slightly longer and still had considerable quota from the Board. The Chancellor's estimate last year of borrowings has been greatly exceeded again. He estimated that he would need about £318 million from the Board. Net issues were made of £515 million which, of course, put his estimate way out. It is only natural that he should look for some further change this year to try to get a more accurate estimate of the money which the Treasury should put aside for the local authorities.
As I have said, last year £515 million of net issues was made. This year, the Chancellor is to reduce the amount to £480 million if his estimate is not falsified. So he is cutting by about £35 million this year the amount he expects to make available net through the Board. That is a very considerable reduction from the point of view of the local authorities. I expect that, from the Treasury point of view, he could not have ever increasing amounts and he has changed the whole basis upon which the money is made available.
I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman stressed that quite enough. The basis of a proportion of long-term borrowings, plus fundings, has gone. Therefore, the whole basis of the White Paper has gone, because the basis was increasing the quota of long-term borrowing in return for a reduction in parallel of short-term borrowing. Once the Chancellor changes the whole basis of the quota on long-term borrowing to something else, it seems to me that the basis of the White Paper has gone.
Still looking at it from the Treasury's point of view, I suggest that the Chancellor has changed the yardstick to a proportion of net capital expenditure. From that point of view, that would not seem unreasonable, because it would seem that one hase a more accurate figure there on which one can calculate the Treasury's

early estimate. It would seem much more logical and reasonable, because loan sanctions depend on permission from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. According to the annual Report of the Ministry, £1,195 million of loans were sanctioned by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and by the Secretary of State for Wales in 1966. I shall return to this aspect when I look at the subject from the local authorities' point of view.
It is reasonable to expect that the Chancellor will get better estimates in taking the proportion of capital expenditure in the ensuing year than he would from the other method of calculation. I hope that the House appreciates that this really is a fundamental change. But surely the 34 per cent. the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, plus the supplementary quota, is really nothing akin to the previous 30 per cent. which we had under the White Paper arrangements. It is 34 per cent. of a different figure, calculated quite differently. It must come out of rather less than the previous arrangements, because less has been made available.
So far, I have dealt with this from the Treasury viewpoint, which is that all of its estimates were insufficient for the amount of borrowing that came about, and, therefore, it has now changed the basis. May I now look at it from the local authority's viewpoint, because we also have a duty to do this. We lay duties upon the local authorities and it is because of them that they have had vastly increased capital expenditure.
If one looks at the 91st annual Report of the Public Works Loan Board, which was published this year, one sees that the total debt of local authorities outstanding nine years ago, 1956–57, was £5,252 million. This year it is almost double, about £10,500 million. This is because we have laid upon local authorities certain duties, and we must also see that they have the loan resources available to meet those duties.
Let us look at it from the local authority's point of view. Historically, they borrow short because of necessity, because it is wiser to borrow short rather than long when interest rates are higher, because one hopes that one day they will come down. Their capital expenditure was rising fast. They had before them


a plan in the White Paper of 20 per cent. one year, 30 per cent. the next, 40 per cent. the year after that, and so on. They got their 30 per cent. increase in quota on time.
As I have said, this led to an enormous rise in borrowing but their commitments were far greater. So, the treasurers adapted themselves by doing more one to three year borrowing. Last year, when the ordinary one-year bonds were forbidden to rank for quota, there came into operation rather more borrowings of just over one year in length. We anticipated this in the debate we had on this last year. I referred to it at column 791 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 13th May, 1966.
Local authorities were entitled to expect that borrowings which were of slightly less than one year would still rank this year for quota, and that the whole basis of quota would not be changed. What the Financial Secretary is doing is stopping all renewals of loans from ranking for quota at all. There will be many local authorities who have loans maturing this year and who are expecting that they will rank for quota. They are loans which have never before ranked for quota, and they will not now be able to draw on the Public Works Loan Board in respect of them. From this point of view it is a very considerable change.
They have also been asked, to rephase their loans by the statement of 27th July last year. Undoubtedly this will have caused local authorities a great deal of concern and worry. They are entitled to feel a little aggrieved and bewildered at the suddenness of the change. I know that they were consulted, but it seems that the consultations were short, and perhaps rather cursory.
When we were looking at this from the Treasury point of view, I mentioned that I thought it was reasonable that a proportion of capital expenditure was probably more calculable than a proportion of long term borrowing. I still think that there will be a certain amount of guess-work in this, because quite a number of local authorities have hitherto dealt with capital expenditure by way of revenue income in their revenue account.
Has the Financial Secretary seen a paper from the annual conference at

Brighton of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants held on 15th June this year? Page 24 of the report of the conference, dealing with the capital sector, says:
Where capital expenditure is concerned, none know in advance whether or not current actions are going to be best in the long run. The hardy argument of "pay as you go versus long term borrowing" is now often relatively academic because rates of grant or functions or areas may be altered in the future. Those who have, for instance, met all school meals capital expenditure from revenue profited by the change in the school meals grant this year, because they have already been 100 per cent. reimbursed; whilst those who borrowed are left with the balance outstanding which they must now meet.
It seems that this is yet one more complication for local authorities—they will extract from capital account expenditure which formerly they met out of revenue. One has only to look at the form which has gone out from the Public Works Loan Board, a copy of which went out with every Circular 11 to see that the local authorities will be concerned to get as much expenditure under the heading of capital as they can. The form says that capital payments will include
…payments actually made in the year by the local authority for: (i) acquisition of land and existing buildings; (ii) building and civil engineering, i.e. works of construction, conversion, renewal or replacement;…(v) salaries…to the extent that they are properly chargeable to capital; (vi) improvement grants and clean air grants; (vii) loans made by the authority,…; (viii) other items properly chargeable to capital, e.g. stamp duty, development charges, loan procuration costs;".
There will be quite a good deal of latitude there to get into capital payments things which the local authorities have been dealing with by way of revenue payments. It is quite true to say in the Government's defence that the increasing costs placed on local authorities will be offset to some extent by a subsidised interest rate for housing capital expenditure, whereby a grant will be made to a local authority to bring down its interest rates, in so far as capital is related to housing, to 4 per cent. On the other hand, there is the fact that the loan rates through the Public Works Loan Board have been increased.
From the beginning of June they were put up from the old rate of 5⅐ per cent. to 6 per cent., to the new rate of 6¼ per cent. to 6¾ per cent. I should imagine that this is to reduce the amount of subsidy on the interest rates on Public


Works Loan Board loans which, from a Parliamentary Answer given last year by the Financial Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), amounted to £5 million in a year.
The local authorities have had to face a complete change in the basis of the grants, a quite fundamental change. They will now have to extract from revenue account items of capital expenditure which will now rank for grant when previously they did not. They will not get maturing loans this year ranking for grant, but they will get more interest in respect of housing capital expenditure. There will be higher interest charges in respect of ordinary capital expenditure, because the rate has been put up.
We also learn from the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board on bank charges—some of us for the first time—that local authorities have to pay ½ per cent. more than nationalised industries for money from banks. Once again, from their point of view, they have a good deal of doubt and expense to face during the coming year. When we were debating this question last year, I asked the Financial Secretary a question, which I know it was not entirely for him to answer, but I had hoped that we would have something during the year.
I said then:
I am not certain whether the policy he announced today and which became apparent in the White Paper issued with the Budget is a new policy or whether it is an interim policy. I suspect that it is the latter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1956; Vol. 6728, c. 791.]
Last year's was an interim policy. This year, there has been a change, but I suspect that it is an interim change, pending a review. It means that local authorities have to go on without any certainty as to the future. It would seem that the basis of the 1963 White Paper to which they were clinging has gone.
I turn to the future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech mentioned that a review would be put in hand. This was linked with the right hon. Gentleman's comments about reducing the apparent size of the Budget deficit, because the apparent size, according to his thesis, was swelled by the amount of borrowing by local authorities and nationalised industries. Today we are dealing only with local authorities. As

my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) said in the Budget debate, local authority expenditure is Government expenditure and, therefore, is a rightful charge on the Budget. Nationalised industries may be another matter.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: No, they are not.

Mrs. Thatcher: I said "may be". I was not committing myself on that point because it is not within our terms of reference today.
But what I suspect the Chancellor was doing was not putting a review in hand with the amount of expenditure in mind, but attempting to take it out of the Budget and, therefore, make it seem to some of our foreign creditors that there was less Government expenditure than, in fact, was the case.
I thought that the point was put extremely well by the Sunday Times, in an article on 16th April, in which it was said:
What the foreign creditors are interested in is not how much or where the money is raised but how much and where it is spent. It is on the mechanics of expenditure control that more light needs to be thrown.
That is the crucial point, not whether this should be a charge on the Budget.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to have expenditure control without detailed consideration of interest rates? As the Treasury put out a Press statement on 30th May delineating all the interest rates from the Public Works Loan Board—quota and non-quota, short and long—is it not rather insolent to the House of Commons that the Treasury spokesman should omit to make any reference to interest rates?

Mrs. Thatcher: I agree that interest rates are crucial in this matter. I feel sure that the Financial Secretary, in replying to the debate, will answer my hon. Friend very fully after he has made, as I am sure he will wish to do, his own contribution.
We are all interested in what the Financial Secretary will have to say, particularly in view of the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board, which, I thought, went a little beyond its terms of reference, but undoubtedly made some interesting comments about local authority financing.
In the meantime, various arrangements are being mooted by some local authorities and by people who give great thought to these matters. There is discussion of other central borrowing organisations in the Local Government Finance issue of February, 1967. There were comments in the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin in December, 1966, which ran as follows:
The present arrangements for dividing local authority borrowing between the Exchequer and the capital and money markets has suited conditions in the recent past, but as conditions change so it may be preferable to alter the balance.
All, I think, including the Financial Secretary, are aware of the problem, but it is taking rather a long time to solve it.
Meanwhile, we have to rely on the ingenuity and ability of local treasurers. I think that perhaps the change has undermined their confidence a little. I quote from the Local Government Chronicle of April, 1967:
To relate P.W.L.B. quota loans to annual capital expenditure rather than to borrowings would be logical. But it is indefensible that local authorities should still be in the dark as to how they stand. And any suggestion that a Treasury change of front is justified by the fact that councils repeatedly borrowing for short periods have not played the game would call for two comments: first, that on a lender's market and in an inflationary situation they have had no alternative, and, second, that it is a curious sort of game in which the rules are changed during the course of play.
That indicates how local authorities feel.
From the Treasury viewpoint, one recognises that certain changes were called for because of the rapidly increasing commitment. Those changes have left local authorities aggrieved and bewildered, and I hope that, since last year's interim policy has become a holding policy this year, a definite policy will have been outlined by next year which local authorities know they can rely on for a number of years to come.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. John Nott: My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is absolutely correct in saying that the Bill reorganises fundamentally the basis on which local authorities may approach the Public Works Loan Board. The change to 34 and 44 per cent. of net capital expenditure is very different from the previous arrangement of 30 per

cent. and 40 per cent. at long term borrowing. Nevertheless, I feel that, on the whole, the new criterion of assessment is probably an improvement on the old one.
The old system, set out in the 1963 White Paper, which, in effect, sanctified a permanent amount of temporary borrowing—I think that one can describe it in that way—was never a very satisfactory criterion for assessing the amount for which local authorities could go to the Board. The new system is probably an improvement, certainly from the Treasury's point of view.
I was surprised that the Financial Secretary did not dwell rather more on interest rates because, although they are not specifically mentioned in the Bill, the Bill concerns the whole question of local authority capital borrowing and capital expenditure, which goes to the root of the matter. I see no reason why local authorities should be subsidised on interest rates. I have never seen any argument for that. It would be very much better if they paid the market rate of interest. I am, therefore, glad to see that the interest rates have been raised for access to the Board.
In pactice, that is unlikely to put any great strain on local authorities, because the Housing Subsidies Bill will offset, to some extent, the rise in the Board's interest rate. There is also the point that at the moment interest rates are falling. It is likely, in any event, that over the coming year there will not be very much difference in the aggregate rate of interest which local authorities have to pay as a result of these two factors. Nevertheless, there is an element of uncertainty about it, and I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley said. One has only to read what is said about local government finance in local authority journals to know that treasurers are very concerned about the element of uncertainty.
There is one aspect of these new arrangements which seems to me wholly regrettable. In the White Paper Cmnd. 3243, entitled "Loans from the Consolidated Fund 1967–68", mention is made of additional help which local authorities are being given whose temporary debt is in excess of 20 per cent. of their total outstanding debt. These local authorities are being given additional help to borrow from the Board in order to fund the


element in excess of the 20 per cent. temporary amount.
This seems to me wholly wrong, because it penalises "the good boys"—those local authorities which have acted within the rules and have kept their temporary borrowing down to the limit which they were asked to follow. They are now, in practice, being made to borrow at the new interest rates, whereas local authorities which have not played the game and have not abided by the rules will be given special assistance. This goes back to the 1963 White Paper and the limit of 20 per cent. on temporary borrowing then set, because the effect of that has been that all those local authorities which were—

It being half-past Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRAVEL ALLOWANCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

12.30 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: On the Motion for the Adjournment, I wish to raise a matter of which I gave notice on 18th April last having regard to the highly satisfactory reply which I then received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the matter of travel allowances for British citizens travelling oversea outside the sterling area.
It is, perhaps, quixotic—it depends on one's sense of humour—that the United Nations has promoted in 1967 International Tourist Year. The Treasury has decided throughout 1967 to apply the strictest and most stringent limitation of funds available to British nationals travelling abroad which have ever been known in recent history.
Of course, it fell to the Tories in the early 1950s virtually to abolish the nonsense inaugurated by the late Lord Dalton and Sir Stafford Cripps after the war in trying to restrict what British citizens should spend abroad. We abolished it. We kept a notional limit of

£250 per person per annum on the travel allowance, but anybody could have more if he wanted it.
On 20th July, 1966, the Prime Minister decided, for no economic reason as far as I can tell, to impose a £50 limit on the travel allowance for British citizens abroad. That £50 was computed thus. The total number of British citizens travelling outside the sterling area was divided into the aggregation of expenditure and it was decided that the average expenditure per person was a trifle less than £50. The Chancellor therefore decided on a £50 limit.
I now proceed with some Parliamentary quotations. In his Budget statement on 11th April last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer used these words:
The present restrictions on travel expenditure provide a useful gain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 994.]
In due course I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 18th April, what was the gain. I asked:
what saving in foreign exchange during the year ended 5th April, 1967, resulted from the £50 foreign currency limit applied to British people travelling abroad outside the sterling area".
The Chancellor replied:
Travel statistics for the year mentioned are not yet available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th April, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 292.]
On the one hand, therefore, the Chancellor misled the House in his Budget statement by saying that there was a useful gain; and a week later he came back and said that he could not quantify the useful gain. That is a further example of Treasury deceit—I repeat, Treasury deceit—which I dislike very much indeed, because I like Chancellors of the Exchequer to be utterly candid and truthful with the House of Commons. I gave notice that I would raise the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who has been campaigning with me in this important matter, asked the Chancellor on 13th June
If he will make a statement reviewing the results of the £50 travel allowance; and what proposals he has for increasing it.
The Chancellor replied:
No, Sir. Meaningful figures will not be available for some time after the main holiday season is over."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 295.]


That awful word—"meaningful". The Prime Minister used it twice in his D Notice statement last week—"meaningful", Parliamentary jargon to replace "purposive" from the last General Election or the "white heat" of the technological revolution which we have yet to see. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not use the word "meaningful" today.
My first complaint, therefore, is that the Chancellor said that there were useful savings, but he will not tell the House of Commons what they are. Indeed, he now informs my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North and myself that he is not in a position to quantify what those savings will be.
I am not alone in these matters. Almost the entire national Press is now with me, as witness an important contribution from Professor A. J. P. Taylor, who is no friend of the Tory Party or of mine, who wrote on 26th March:
The £50 limit is not of the slightest use to our economic circumstances and never has been. It was merely the worst panic-measure in a series of panic-measures. The imposition of the limit did not bring any benefit during the weakness of the £. Foreigners were not impressed. They simply thought that the British Government must have lost its senses to rely on such a foolish measure.
Of course, the learned professor was exactly right when he wrote those words in the Sunday Express of 26th March.
Professor Taylor was followed by the Daily Mail on 6th April in its leading editorial, which printed these words:
And now, surely, Mr. Callaghan can afford to lift that annoying £50 limit on holiday travel allowances. It never was a serious economic measure, but was imposed to show the world we meant business in dealing with our economic problems. Now, it would make equally good sense to abolish it or at least raise it to its pre-squeeze figure of £250 to show that not only did we mean business but that we are succeeding.
The Daily Mail followed with words of great wisdom:
People will always respond to leadership whereas they will do their damnedest to evade petty restrictions",
as these restrictions are largely being evaded.
Various professional bodies are concerned with tourism, notably during the United Nations International Tourist Year, when the British Government have gone so sour on the United Nations by

their restrictions on travel allowances for British nationals. The British Travel Association says in its report to me on the matter that it seems quite certain that the internal credit squeeze is having a far greater effect on United Kingdom citizens travelling and spending abroad than the £50 allowance. Bookings for holidays in 1967 are at the same level as they were in 1966. All of which underlines my view that there is no overall saving whatever by foreign travel allowances. The statistics furnished to me by the British Travel Association support that view.
I want, however, to quote what I believe to be an important statement by Lord Geddes, Chairman of the British Travel Association, who said at the annual general meeting, last October.
We were disappointed when the Government introduced a currency restriction on our own people travelling abroad, partly because we do not think that currency restrictions are effective, but principally because, appreciating this country's present economic situation, we believe that positive action to expand trade and to compete with our rivals were the right answers. We hear increasing references to the importance of tourism in the balance of payments.
It is right that attention should be given to this matter, but there is still a great misunderstanding about the situation. Travel spending by British people going abroad is often compared with earnings from visitors to this country—as though the two should balance. But there is no direct connection between the two. Do we measure our imports of oil against our exports of coal, and cut down on the former in order to obtain what I suppose would be called a balance of fuel? That would be economic nonsense—and so would be any attempt to achieve a balance of payments in tourism.
All one can say is that travel restrictions in one country tend to encourage restrictions in others; and we can only hope that Her Majesty's Government will find it possible to lift the £50 limit before our own tourist trade is affected by it.
Here are the supporting statistics. In 1965, there were 4·9 million United Kingdom visitors travelling overseas. They spent £290 million outside the sterling area. In 1966, there were 5 million people travelling abroad. They spent £301 million. The estimate for 1967, again from the British Travel Association, is 5 million visitors travelling abroad, and the total expenditure will be roughly the same at £300 million. Therefore, there is no change as a result of all this wretched paraphernalia of minute


restrictions on British people going abroad, and there is no estimated saving in foreign exchange.
Since 1965, we have seen an increase from 2·776 million people coming into Britain to an estimated 3·5 million people this year. The incoming money has increased from £321 million in 1965, including air fares, to £380 million in 1967. The two are not quite in balance, but they are not very far removed the one from the other, if it is the Treasury's policy to try to bring them into balance, the incoming and the outgoing.
I continue by quoting one further contribution in the national Press, again not from a friend of the Tory Party or even a friend of mine. In fact, I am named in the contribution. It appeared on 30th March, 1967, in The Guardian, written by the Financial Editor, Mr. William Davis. For some curious reason he says:
Sir Gerald Nabarro is not the best possible champion for this particular cause.
He is referring there to the foreign travel allowance. I do not know why he says that. It is a rather misguided statement. However, he continues in a very sensible vein when he writes:
The classic Whitehall solution is to prevaricate. This is easy enough: one simply says that serious consideration should be given to raising the travel allowance when the 1967 tourist season is over. By then, the Treasury should have figures to show whether the whole exercise was worth while, and the Bank of England should be a bit less fretful about sterling. Few holiday-makers would take advantage of the higher limit until 1968, but an announcement that it would go up to, say, £100 exactly one year after the emergency figure became effective might boost the morale of middle-class types who are brassed off with the Labour Government's apparent disdain for any sort of incentives.
The whole of the middle class is "brassed off" with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Treasury colleagues, who discriminate against the great middle class of Britain, 5 million of whom believe in taking their holidays outside the sterling area and who are gravely concerned about the humiliation heaped on British heads when they are treated overseas, as the poor relations of the Common Market and the Iron Curtain countries.
I do not like being regarded overseas as lower than the Albanian tourist for the sum of money which my Government will allow me for my holiday peregrinations

round Europe. Neither do 5 million other British people, especially when it serves no economic purpose. Accordingly, I want to see the abolition of the £50 limit at the end of this travel year, namely, on 31st October next. I believe that the present limit is futile economically and has resulted in no overall saving in foreign exchange. If the Financial Secretary wishes to disagree with me, perhaps he will quantify the statement made by the Chancellor on 11th April last that there is a useful saving in foreign exchange. If he cannot, I shall endorse the words of Mr. William Davis that the Chancellor is prevaricating.
In my judgment, it is utterly humiliating that Britons overseas outside the sterling area should be regarded as second-class people. I endorse the views of the Chairman of the Conservative Party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who said in a speech in the West of England last Saturday, reported in the Sunday Express of 18th June:
A British passport not so long ago was virtually a guarantee of safe conduct. Today it is almost a provocation to insults in too many countries.
The travel allowance aids and abets those insults.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) for allowing me a few minutes in which to add to his forceful remarks.
I want to remind hon. Members of the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 13th June, in reply to a Question of mine, in which he said:
…the travel allowance is certainly adequate for the holiday needs of most families in this country when they go abroad."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 295.]
My complaint is that the Chancellor has twisted that argument into a typical Socialist point that only the rich suffer from his measures. I complain on three grounds.
First, these measures make it impossible for people to have two holidays abroad a year. I would remind the Financial Secretary that very many people, particularly the young, have got into the pattern of having a short ski-ing holiday in the winter and another


cheapish holiday during the summer, and that they make considerable sacrifices to those ends.
Second, it is virtually impossible for people to have more than a fortnight's holiday. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that many people, particularly the elderly, enjoy having slightly longer than 14 days in the sun.
Third, it is clear that the £50 allowance greatly restricts the choice of places where British tourists can stay. The hon. and learned Gentleman may not be aware of it, but I have been looking at a booklet published by Sir Thomas Cook & Son which shows that British tourists are restricted to relatively modest hotels costing less than £3 a day. If they want to go to a better hotel, they can afford to stay for only one week. For example, France, Italy and Switzerland are very expensive countries, and many British tourists find themselves in difficulty. In Lucerne, out of 16 hotels listed, in seven of them a British tourist can only afford to stay for one week. Similarly, in Greece there are 22 hotels shown in Thomas Cook's booklet, in 12 of which British tourists can only stay for one week, the reason being that many of the hotels cost a little more than £3 a day.
I think that this is a typical piece of Socialism. Our Socialist masters are trying in yet one more measure to regulate our lives and are laying down a Treasury diktat that British tourists shall not have more than one holiday a year, that they shall not have more than 14 days' holiday and must stay in a modest hotel costing not more than £3 a day. That is Socialism, and I join with my hon. Friend in condemning it.

12.48 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), as usual, began his speech with inaccuracy and ended with prejudice. He said that this was the strictest ever travel limit imposed. It is not. The strictest ever travel limit was imposed by his own Government in 1952, and the limit was £25. He says that it was done for no economic reason that he could see. He knows perfectly well why it was done.
He argues that it is not achieving its object, which is to make a saving to assist our balance of payments. Let me begin by reminding hon. Members that

expenditure on foreign travel by United Kingdom residents in non-sterling countries is substantial and has been rising rapidly. In 1958, it was £112 million. In 1966, it was almost double, at £221 million. If it be right, as the hon. Gentleman says, that there has been no change in the year following the imposition of the restrictions, that does not mean that there has not been a substantial saving.
Then he attacked the way in which the £50 limit was arrived at. It is correct that the average expenditure in Western Europe by United Kingdom residents for visits of all kinds was some £43. With the £50 travel restriction plus the £15 which people are allowed to take in sterling notes, each individual's expenditure is likely to be of the order of £60.
In 1965, only 27 per cent. of travellers to Western Europe spent more than £60 a visit but they accounted for 52 per cent. of the spending and between them they spent about £75 million; 6 per cent. spent more than £100 a visit, accounting for £24 million, and that was 17 per cent. of holiday spending by travellers to Western Europe. These figures show that the £50 allowance is adequate for the needs of most families going abroad, but that the restriction bites on a significant number who are in a position to spend much more than the average and, but for the restriction, would spend more.
I thought that the attempt by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) to show that the restriction was affecting the poorer people was rather fanciful. I wonder how many people with an average rate of earnings in this country are in a position to have two holidays a year, and to stay for more than a fortnight in hotels which cost more than £3 a day? I think that the fact that he uses such an argument indicates how out of touch he is. But I was grateful for his tribute to the work of the nationalised Thomas Cook & Sons.
I come now to the extent of the saving. It is said that because the figure cannot be quantified it means that there is deceit by the Chancellor—"Treasury deceit" was the hon. Gentleman's phrase. I imagine that as a businessman he usually knows whether his business is making a profit or a loss, even if he is not in a position to quantify the profit or loss until the end of the year.
Tourist expenditure does not represent a steady outflow which one can compare for one quarter by looking at the preceding one. The time of heavy spending is only just starting, and will run on until the autumn. It is obviously at this time that the restrictions for the current year will have the most effect. The information about expenditure takes some time to process. We cannot hope, before December, to have meaningful figures of the actual expenditure for this holiday season, and even then there will be problems of comparison with the necessarily hypothetical estimate of what they would have been without the restrictions, owing to the rising curve of travel expenditure.
There is no doubt that a useful saving is being achieved, and although there is no statistical evidence there is plenty of other evidence to show it. First, there are the numerous applications for an additional allowance which are being refused, and the many letters of complaint on refusal. In this connection, I may say that it is perhaps not surprising that everyone thinks his case for a special allowance is unique.
Second, there are the efforts—and I pay tribute to them—of the travel trade to arrange cheaper holidays, sometimes by securing more advantageous terms from foreign hoteliers, so that they are able to offer a wide range of package holidays which can comfortably be fitted into the basic allowance and still leave the holidaymaker with an adequate spending allowance.
Third, I think, there is the evidence to which the hon. Gentleman referred, namely, the statement in the ordinary and trade Press of a disappointing season for travel agents. The hon. Gentleman suggested that this was all attributable to the credit squeeze. This is, of course, a matter for judgment, but I think that the travel allowance limit will have had an effect on this; one has to look at the effect of the July measures as a whole, as a package designed to achieve these savings in our balance of payments. All this adds up to substantial evidence that the restrictions are providing a useful gain, even though the extent of the gain cannot yet be quantified.
The hon. Gentleman referred to evasion. There have been some articles

in the Press about evasion of these restrictions and suggesting ways in which it can be done. There is evasion of all laws, but all the methods which I have seen discussed involve infringement of the Exchange Control Act. It is unfortunate that the Press which has given publicity to this has done so, and, in particular, has not pointed out that anyone who follows these measures will render himself liable to heavy penalties. The Treasury already has a number of inquiries on foot into cases of misuse.
The hon. Gentleman did not refer specifically to the anxiety of the travel trade for an announcement about what the arrangements will be for the next travel year starting on 1st November, but I know that he is aware of this point, and, of course, we are. We fully understand the concern of the trade. As I said in reply to a recent Question from the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), my right hon. Friend
hopes to make an announcement before long."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 6th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 162.]
I am not in a position to make the announcement this morning, but I can tell the House that an announcement will be made before the end of this month.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that he thought these restrictions were leading to British people being held up to contempt abroad.

Sir G. Nabarro: "Humiliation" was the word I used.

Mr. MacDermot: There are two major international bodies concerned with payments between countries—the International Monetary Fund, and the O.E.C.D. Our fellow members of these organisations have all agreed that we should impose these restrictions on travel. Some of them will feel the effect quite sharply, but in spite of this they realise that the Government are determined to put the country's balance of payments position right, and to strengthen the £.
So far from that earning us any contempt, or them thinking that we are humiliating ourselves, our determination to achieve this end, and the fearless use of measures which are bound to be unpopular, commands respect in all informed quarters abroad. It is worth


adding in this connection that no Governments have pressed us to remove these restrictions, nor have any Governments taken any retaliatory action. We know—and we knew when we imposed them—that these measures are unpopular. These are not restrictions which any Chancellor —or any Government—likes to impose. My right hon. Friend will be delighted to raise them as soon as he can, but for the reasons which I have given we believe that they are making a useful contribution to the substantial improvement which is gradually taking place in our balance of payments, and we must ask members of the public travelling abroad to put up with the inconvenience which results from them.
As I have said, and as the continuing large number of people who travel abroad shows, the restrictions are not prohibitive. They allow people to take holidays abroad. We are not trying to prevent them. All that we are seeking to do is to put some restraint which will operate in particular on those who have been putting a heavy burden on our foreign balance of payments position by spending sums considerably above the amounts which are now permitted.
The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting until half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Royal Naval Air Station, Yeovilton

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether, in view of the overcrowding in some of the ancient huts at the Royal Naval Air Station, Yeovilton, he will now accelerate the programme for their replacement.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Reg Prentice): The additional accommodation mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member on 26th April will be built as quickly as possible. The first block should be ready for occupation early in 1969 and the whole programme completed by the summer of that year.—[Vol. 745, c. 305.]

Mr. Peyton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the overcrowding of these old blocks is now quite scandalous? Does not he think that even by Government standards of progress it is simply outrageous to take three years to put up two factory-built blocks?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I cannot accept the latter part of the supplementary question. The defence building programme, as with all others, has to be phased, for reasons with which the House will be familiar. I agree that the sailors at Yeovilton, as in many other places, are housed in very unsatisfactory accommodation. We have a considerable programme for improving and modernising this accommodation over the years.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Does not the Minister think that my hon. Friend's supplementary question is a reasonable one? Will he make every effort he can to see that this project is speeded up?

Mr. Prentice: The Navy Department is putting some temporary buildings there shortly. These should be available in August. There are some other people coming to Yeovilton for the training programme on the Phantom aircraft. Then the new building will take place in due

course both to provide the extra numbers and to relieve the overcrowding to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. In view of the totally inadequate nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Construction Industry

Mr. Hilton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will take steps to replace the table on value of output for construction, which is produced by his Department, with a table which more accurately reflects production and productivity with the construction industry.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The present table gives figures at constant—1958—prices and thus reflects changes in the actual volume of construction. Efforts to improve its accuracy are always being made. My Department does not publish figures of productivity as indications of short-term changes might be misleading.

Mr. Hilton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that his reply on 12th December was that these figures included profits for contractors, and that if profits rise we shall have the farcical situation in which output will also appear to rise? Should not there be an attempt, even if it concerns only planning construction activities of the E.D.C.s, to provide them with a table which accurately indicates output?

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the problem affecting not only construction statistics but industrial statistics generally. It is true that when demand is buoyant profits are rising and the figures appear to be better than they are in fact, whereas in periods when conditions are getting worse the figures appear to be worse than they are. Constant efforts are made to try to improve the accuracy of our figures. I shall be glad to discuss the whole problem with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Costain: What evidence has the right hon Gentleman that profits are rising in the building industry?

Mr. Prentice: I did not indicate that they were.

Bricks and Bricklayers (Requirements)

Mr. Hilton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is his estimate of the effect of the trend towards prefabricated systems of house building on the future need for bricks and bricklayers; and whether he will initiate discussions with all the parties involved about future requirements.

Mr. Prentice: The demands placed upon the building industry require not only the increasing use of industrialised building but also higher output by traditional methods. Bricks and bricklayers will be needed for both. The Economic Development Committee for the Building Industry is considering this subject in the context of the manpower and materials situation in the industry as a whole.

Mr. Hilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in spite of what he says, the number of bricks in stock today is abnormally high and that the number of bricklayers is declining? As these people have responded in the past to appeals from the Government to help the Government's programme, should not some Government assistance be given to help them plan their future?

Mr. Prentice: Stocks of bricks are still abnormally high, but the numbers have fallen a great deal recently. There was a considerable reduction in the stocks in April compared with those in March.

Mr. Channon: Will the Minister also examine the effect of S.E.T. on bricklayers?

Mr. Prentice: The incidence of S.E.T. is continually under review.

Non-Industrial Staff

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what increase there has been in his Department's non-industrial establishment in the last two years.

Mr. Prentice: Between April, 1965, and April, 1967, the number of staff has increased by 669, or 2·8 per cent.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister expect this number to continue to rise or will

he stabilise the number in his Department?

Mr. Prentice: For certain categories we hope that it will rise. We have considerable shortages of technical and professional staff. Of the figures I gave, 474 were recruited to fill vacancies. We should like to attract more people in these categories to the staff of the Ministry.

Building and Civil Engineering Companies (Government Contracts)

Mrs. Renée Short: > asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will give Government contracts only to building and civil engineering companies whose boards contain an adequate number of professionally qualified engineers.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the present arrangements are adequate. Any firm may apply for inclusion in the approved list from which selections to tender for my Department's contracts are made. Before firms are put on this list, professionally qualified officers inspect their facilities and assess their capacity.

Mrs. Short: In view of the fact that the Government are now responsible for about 60 per cent. of all construction work carried out in this country and for 90 per cent. of the civil engineering work, and also bearing in mind the fact that this is a highly fragmented industry, does not he think that this would be a way of improving both administration and standards of work throughout the building and civil engineering industries? Will he reconsider the suggestion?

Mr. Prentice: I am glad to take up any suggestions to improve the efficiency of the industry, but I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's suggestion would contribute to that. Out of about 14,000 contracts that we place every year a great many are very small—of £1,000 or less—and it would be out of proportion to the size of the problem to insist on the conditions which my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Would it not be unfortunate if the original Question were taken to imply that membership of the Institute of Building was not a qualification?

Mr. Prentice: This is a qualification and should be noted as such.

Historic Buildings

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he has taken in 1967 to ensure a more economic use of historic buildings in his charge.

Mr. Prentice: Visits by the public for which an admission charge is made are generally the most economic use of an historic building unless it is fully occupied. Steps taken in 1967 to improve revenue from admission fees include a review of admission charges, the planning of a national exhibition, improved designs for standard guide books, and performances of Son-et-Lumiere.

Mr. Allason: Will the Minister tell us how many derelict buildings he has in his charge, and what efforts are made to make them habitable? When they are habitable they can be preserved.

Mr. Prentice: I am not sure to what category of buildings the hon. Member is referring. Many of the buildings to which I was referring are ancient monuments, and it would clearly be quite wrong to rehabilitate these and build them in a modern form. We preserve them as they have come down to us, and people visit them to see them in that condition. We take every care to look after them, but do not rebuild them.

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made, in consultation with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in producing a co-ordinated national policy for the better preservation and use of historic buildings.

Mr. Prentice: My functions in respect of historic buildings were transferred to my right hon. Friend last summer. My architects and inspectors of ancient monuments continue to provide the Historic Buildings Council with assistance in discharge of its duty. There is at all times the fullest co-ordination between the two Departments.

Mr. Allason: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the Government's policy to assist the better preservation of the centres of old towns, by way of making new uses of old buildings?

Mr. Prentice: My right hon. Friend is carrying out certain pilot studies in this connection, and the hon. Gentleman should put a Question down to him, if he wants more detail, because it is his responsibility. It is because he has this particular responsibility that the Historic Buildings Council now reports to him. It was transferred to him by Order last year so that the work could be better co-ordinated within my right hon. Friend's Department.

Building Licences

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works, whether he will now raise the exemption limit for building licensing under the Building Control Act, 1966 to £100,000, by order.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. If I were to do this the operation of the control would become less flexible and I would have to turn down more applications costing over £100,000.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Does not the Minister think that in order to avoid the time lag between the moment when the expansion begins and the moment when the building owners are ready to invite tenders he should take this moderate step to remove the impost? Can he forecast what the capacity of the industry will be over the next 12 months?

Mr. Prentice: I should like notice of the latter part of the supplementary question. We expect an increase of about 5 per cent. in the total output of the industry next year compared with this year. This will include a big expansion in housing and other programmes. There is not likely to be scope for licensing extra projects in the category covered by the Building Control Act. It would be a mistake to assume that part of the increase in output will be carried out by extra licences in that category.

Mr. John Smith: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what guidance he gives to unsuccessful applicants for building licences in order to assist them in any future application.

Mr. Prentice: Officials of the Ministry are prepared to discuss the position with unsuccessful applicants, and give them as much relevant information as possible.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister bear in mind that this does not always happen and that to start very large schemes within six months of the issue of a licence, as required by law, means a lot of work being done before the licence is issued? Is he aware that this work can be wasted? Will he ensure that plenty of consultation takes place beforehand to ensure that work is not wasted on the part of those preparing these schemes?

Mr. Prentice: The date of the licence could be adjusted where appropriate. This is the sort of problem that is often discussed between applicants for licences and officials of my Ministry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage any contacts he may have to go in for very full discussions of this sort. I assure him that we endeavour to help in solving this type of problem whenever we can.

Mr. John Smith: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will view favourably applications to license building work which slightly exceeds £50,000 in cost, but to reduce which would damage this country's reputation and trade abroad.

Mr. Prentice: Applications for licences under the Building Control Act are considered in the light of all relevant circumstances, including contribution to exports.

Mr. Smith: Could the Minister bear in mind the fact that when firms put forward schemes of marginally over £50,000, as has happened in my constituency, and are obliged to cut down on the cost, it is necessarily those parts of the scheme which make a good impression on foreigners that get left out? Is he aware that this is damaging, particularly for a firm which is engaged in export?

Mr. Prentice: It is inevitable, under this system, that some applications will be turned down. A firm may prefer to curtail its plans and come below the £50,000 limit rather than wait for a later date. That is an inevitable ocurrence, wherever one draws the line.

St. James's Park (Rubbish Dump)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will take steps to bring about the

removal of the rubbish dump in St. James's Park, owing to the annoyance which it causes to visitors.

Mr. Prentice: I regret any annoyance caused by the dump but there has to be an area in the park where litter, grass clippings and other refuse can be collected before removal elsewhere. I will see whether the present arrangements for storage and disposal can be improved.

Dame Irene Ward: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that what I am asking would have the support of London residents and visitors? Can he assure me that his investigation—I understand that even a car is involved—will be carried out and action will be taken tomorrow? Speed is essential.

Mr. Prentice: I cannot promise to move the site of this dump tomorrow, but I promise to look at two aspects—the place where the dump is sited and the frequency with which the rubbish is taken away. I shall look into both matters and write to the hon. Lady about them.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the Minister realise that his reply does not cover the presence of this car? To whom does it belong? Will he take urgent action to preserve the amenities of this lovely Royal Park, especially at this season, when it is so much enjoyed by our own people and by visitors from overseas?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. This is a lovely Royal Park, and the state in which it is normally kept reflects great credit on those who work in it. As for the car, I am surprised to hear about it, and will investigate the position.

Mr. J. T. Price: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever might be the position about removing this unsightly dump—and its removal would be welcome—at the same time many visitors to the parks could be more litter-conscious, and not distribute so much rubbish about them? Does he agree that if this was so the dump would not be half as big as it is?

Mr. Prentice: I agree absolutely. Some people behave abominably in this way, and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to this.

Historic Monuments

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking in 1967 to attract more foreign visitors to historic monuments in his charge.

Mr. Prentice: In the first five months of 1967, sales of overseas visitors' tickets were 78 per cent. above those during the same period in 1966. More guide-books are being published in translation, and there are more notices on monuments in foreign languages. United States and Canadian dollars are already accepted at some monuments and French currency is now being taken at Dover Castle.

Dame Irene Ward: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that information, may I ask him whether there are any foreign-language-speaking guides available, following the very good example of the guides in London, particularly in view of the fact that we are spending so much teaching foreign languages in our schools and other places?

Mr. Prentice: I should like notice of that question, but I will look into it.

Mr. More: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what facilities for increased public access he has provided in 1967 at historic monuments in his charge.

Mr. Prentice: One new monument has been opened at Rycote Chapel, Oxfordshire. More rooms have been opened at Audley End, Essex; and a new access is provided at Kenilworth Castle, Warwickshire. There are new or improved car parks at four other monuments.

Mr. More: As regards the less-visited monuments in the Minister's charge, may I ask whether his Department takes any active steps to encourage visitors by getting in touch with appropriate organisations, to arrange coach tours and things of that sort?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, we take a number of steps of that kind and do everything we can to publicise our ancient monuments. The figures for the increase in visitors that I announced in reply to another hon. Member just now are an indication of our success in this sphere.

Messrs. Bernard Sunley &amp; Son Ltd. (Contracts)

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what action is contemplated by his Department in relation to contracts with Messrs. Bernard Sunley and Son Limited, in view of the statement by the contracts director of Bernard Sunleys that his company, by provoking a strike at the site at Horse-ferry Road, Westminster, put the contract further behind schedule.

Mr. Prentice: I cannot anticipate the findings of the court of inquiry set up by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, which is inquiring into the disputes at the Barbican and Horseferry Road sites.

Mr. Heffer: Without in any way anticipating the inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—is it not deplorable that a firm should go to the lengths of provoking a dispute on the job, despite any militancy that there might be on the job? Is my right hon. Friend not aware that militancy arises in the building industry precisely because of the bad working conditions that usually apply on the various sites?

Mr. Prentice: I certainly want to see working conditions on building sites improved. As to the particular case, I must repeat that I had better not make any comment until the court of inquiry has reported.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the results of the inquiry are likely to be available, and—without anticipating the results of the inquiry—would he not agree that this site is a national disgrace, whoever is to blame, with all this valuable equipment, cranes worth tens of thousands of pounds, sitting on top of this building doing absolutely nothing, when the building industry is lacking equipment?

Mr. Prentice: I am sorry, but I am still not going to make comments. As to the timing, the court of inquiry completed its hearing of evidence on 12th June. I cannot say exactly when its report will be available. Obviously my right hon. Friend and I will want to see it as soon as practicable.

Regent's Park (Gates)

Sir R. Russell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the cost of erecting gates at the entrances to Regent's Park, London; and on what occasions he anticipates that the Park may be closed to traffic.

Mr. Prentice: The gates were erected and paid for by the Crown Estate Paving Commission. I understand that the cost is about £5,000. I have it in mind to close all park entrances except Hanover, Chester and Clarence Gates, to vehicles between midnight and 5 a.m. The scheme will be put into effect as soon as the necessary traffic arrangements have been settled.

Sir R. Russell: While appreciating that this is a deal difficulty, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a great deal of traffic uses this park even after midnight and certainly before 7 a.m.? Will he bear in mind the extra traffic that will be created in other thoroughfares if he closes this part of the park?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, but I am advised that alternative routes outside the park will be more than capable of bearing the traffic between midnight and 5 a.m. The reason for making these changes is that there has been a number of accidents inside the park between those hours. I think that this has been because there is not much traffic about, and people have driven at unreasonable speeds. This change is being made in consultation with the local authorities, the police and others who are concerned to reduce accidents.

Palace of Westminster (Westminster Bridge Entrance)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he expects work to start on the repairs to the Westminster Bridge entrance to the Palace of Westminster; and when they will be completed.

Mr. Prentice: Temporary wooden gates should be in position by the end of this week. The damaged iron gates will then be sent away for repair and refurbishing and the stone piers will also be repaired. This work will be completed during the Summer Recess.

Mr. van Straubenzee: While appreciating that the right hon. Gentleman's helpful reply meets the convenience of hon. Members who use this entrance, may I ask him to try to reduce to the very shortest time the permanent repairs, because this is an entrance which is seen by large numbers of visitors, and at the moment it looks as though we have the bailiffs in?

Mr. Peyton: We have.

Mr. Prentice: The programme that I have announced is a reasonably fast one. Obviously I will keep in touch with the position, and I think we can keep up with the timetable announced.

Building Industry (New Entrants)

Mr. More: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representation he has received from the building industry about the supply of new entrants to the industry.

Mr. Prentice: No specific representations have been received, but this subject has been discussed at meetings of my National Consultative Council and Regional Joint Committees. The work of the Construction Industry Training Board is having an increasing effect and deserves the full support of everyone in the industry.

Mr. More: Is the Minister aware that the rate of recruitment of apprentices to the building crafts is showing signs of falling off? Does he realise that unless some serious steps are taken to relieve the industry of S.E.T., the Minister may be responsible for a manpower shortage in the industry in the near future?

Mr. Prentice: I concede that S.E.T. has to be paid on trainees, as for other workers, but this is more than offset by the training grant which is paid by the Training Board. I am afraid that some firms still seem to be unaware of the fact that they can claim that training grant, and we ought to do what we can to draw their attention to this very important point.

Mr. Heffer: While this is true, could not my right hon. Friend make some representations to some of his fellow Ministers in order to have S.E.T. removed from apprentices entering the industry?

Mr. Prentice: As I said in reply to an earlier question, the operation of S.E.T. is continually under review, and I am sure that this point will be noted by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Minister aware that, while it is known that his predecessor was against imposing S.E.T. upon the building industry and while it is widely suspected that the right hon. Gentleman is himself against it, is he aware that it is felt that he is not doing enough among his colleagues to get rid of it?

Mr. Prentice: I am surprised at the suggestion that I do not share the views of my right hon. Friends.

Bricks

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of public Building and Works whether he will make a statement about the supply of Fletton bricks.

Mr. Kirk: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement about the future of brick production.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will meet representatives of the brick industry to discuss future production.

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make an estimate of the likely production and consumption of bricks during 1968.

Mr. Prentice: There is sufficent plant capacity to meet foreseeable demands for bricks. There is at present a temporary shortage of Fletton bricks, but production and demand should come into balance later in the summer. Other bricks are plentiful.
I am confident that demand in 1968 will be greater than in 1967, but I am not in a position to give a precise forecast.
I am meeting representatives of the brick industry this week to discuss future demand and capacity.

Mr. Goodhart: As there has been yet another sharp fall in the production of Fletton bricks in the first quarter of this year, can the Minister now give an absolutely firm assurance that manufacturers can sharply increase production of

Fletton bricks without running into yet another glut?

Mr. Prentice: The demand for bricks of all kinds is going up and will continue to go up further, for the reasons I have given in reply to earlier Questions. There is a very active demand for Fletton bricks. The London Brick Company has now brought all its spare capacity into operation. Some other producers have not quite got up to that point, but I hope that they will do so shortly.

Mr. Channon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are not surprised at his reluctance to make a forecast in view of the disastrous forecast made by his predecessor? What is he going to do to get the brick situation straight during 1968, remembering that everyone admits that the brick industry has, owing to Government policy, been through its worst crisis for 30 years?

Mr. Prentice: As on many previous occasions, the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the position. The relationship of brick production with demand has been a difficult problem for the brick industry for many generations. Because of the nature of the product, it is not convenient to hold stocks of any great size; and therefore the industry must quickly move from a position of glut to a position of shortage. This situation is not something that has been created recently.

Mr. Maxwell: My constituency is the centre of the Fletton brick industry. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only reason for the serious shortage today is because of the alarmist forecasts made by hon. Gentlemen opposite and the fact that those forecasts have been flowing out to the brick industry, the employers in that industry being only too glad to accept the advice of their former friends? When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of the industry, will he invite them to refuse to be politically tied to the Conservative Party?

Mr. Prentice: I have had a number of discussions with representatives of the brick industry. I have found that they do not talk in the rather hysterical accents of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: By how many thousands of millions does the Minister believe the number of bricks produced in


1967 will fall below the target for 1965, the target set by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor?

Mr. Prentice: I will be discussing the prospects for production in 1967 with representatives of the brick industry later this week. As I said in my original Answer, I do not propose to give a figure at this stage.

Building Programme (Royal Institute of British Architects)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has recently received from the Royal Institute of British Architects regarding the building programme.

Mr. Prentice: I have received no specific representation from the Royal Institute of British Architects regarding the building programme. The Institute is, of course, represented on my National Consultative Council and Regional Joint Committees, where this matter is frequently discussed.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can the right hon. Gentleman remove the anxieties of architects and others about the breaking up or disruption of design teams in advance of the Government's building programme getting into full development again?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. Overall, there is no shortage of work or architects. There has been some shift of work from the private to the public sector, but the public sector, both local authority and Government, is still short of architects.

Direct Labour Departments (Committee's Report)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he has yet received the Mann Committee's Report on the efficiency of direct labour departments inside his Department; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prentice: I have just received this Report and it is now being studied. I have no further statement to make at present.

Mr. Channon: In view of the interest shown in all parts of the House at the

efficiency of direct labour departments in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, may I ask whether he will arrange for us to see this Report?

Mr. Prentice: This is one matter which I must consider in view of the fact that the original Report from the Mann Committee, received over a year ago, was not published. We reached the decision not to publish it because it contained figures which had been given confidentially by private firms about their costs of operation. I will have to consider the new Report—bearing in mind the fact that the hon. Gentleman would like it to be published—to see whether it can be published.

Building Industry (Bankruptcies)

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what evidence he has received of bankruptcies in the building industry; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Prentice: The limited statistics available indicate that bankruptcies rose from 678 in 1965 to 824 in 1966. Demand for building is rising and this should lead to better business prospects generally.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Without wishing to be alarmist, does not this rather sharp rise show the necessity to avoid damaging nonsenses like the Selective Employment Tax and building controls?

Mr. Prentice: I do not think that those remarks arise on these figures. I believe that the figures reflect the ability of some firms in the industry to meet changes in demand and that they throw some light on the need for further study of the structure of the industry. This is one thing I have asked the two E.D.C.s to undertake.

Mr. Irwin: To what extent is the inefficiency of private enterprise the cause of the increasing number of bankruptcies in the industry?

Mr. Prentice: I would not like to generalise about the number of firms concerned. Usually it would be the less efficient firms which become bankrupt; but there are other circumstances in some cases.

New Building Work (Housing)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the increase in the proportion of new building devoted to new housing since the introduction of building controls.

Mr. Prentice: In the third quarter of 1965, the proportion of new building work represented by housing was 38 per cent. This figure had risen to 41 per cent. in the first quarter of this year.

Mr. Goodhart: As the proportion of effort on new building declined between 1965 and 1966, why will not the Minister now scrap the Government's expensive and wasteful building control policy?

Mr. Prentice: I gave the figures, which show that the proportion rose from 38 per cent. to 41 per cent. I therefore do not know how the hon. Gentleman construes that as a fall in the proportion.

Mr. Channon: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when the building control Measure was going through Parliament he and his predecessor gave assurances to the effect that it would not be necessary to have a figure as low as £50,000? Will he now look at this matter again; or is he really saying that the present economic crisis will be going on for so long that the figure must be kept as low as this?

Mr. Prentice: I indicated, in reply to earlier Questions, that I thought it valuable to have the extra flexibility, which is provided by the range of £50,000 to £100,000, continuing. If we were to give that up I would have to turn down more applications under the £100,000 level, and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not consider that to be desirable.

Construction Industry (Brick and Stone)

Mr. Urwin: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking to increase the demand for brick and stone in the construction industry.

Mr. Prentice: The demand for bricks is now rising with the increase in building activity. Following a meeting

held with representatives of the stone industry at the end of last year, my Department asked other Government Departments and certain non-Governmental bodies to consider using stone where appropriate in buildings for which they are responsible.

Mr. Urwin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer and I appreciate what he is saying. Is he aware, however, that about 4,000 bricklayers and masons are currently unemployed in the construction industry? Apart from the social implications of unemployment, is it not essential, in the interests of the country as a whole, that the full resources of the construction industry should be utilised; that is, if we are to have any hope of meeting the targets which have been placed on the industry?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir, and I think that the up-turn which is already beginning to take place will gather force later this year and next year. This should mean that we will be worrying about a shortage of labour rather than about unemployment.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Without commenting on the merits of the case, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the reference of brick prices to the Prices and Incomes Board may of itself prove something of a disincentive to brick producers?

Mr. Prentice: I hope that it will not, and I believe that the reasons for this step are well understood and appreciated by many of those in the brick industry.

St. James's Park and Greenwich Park (Catering Facilities)

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the progress of proposals to improve amenities and catering facilities in the Royal Parks of St. James's and Greenwich.

Mr. Prentice: Sketch plans for a new "Cake House" in St. James's Park are now ready. Measures are in hand to provide a better selection of food and to improve the service at the Greenwich Park restaurant. We are also looking into ways of making the building itself more attractive.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply in relation to St. James's Park and the "Cake House", but is there not a need for more immediate steps to be taken to improve facilities until the new arrangements come into operation? Further, would he not agree that the present arrangements at Greenwich Park are an absolute disgrace?

Mr. Prentice: We hope to be able to get ahead at St. James's Park without much delay, but we cannot do much more there until we have a more satisfactory building. The range of refreshments available at Greenwich Park is being extended at the moment and I am advised that the tea house will shortly change to full self-service, which may avoid some of the delays which now occur. A new vending machine for soft drinks is also to be provided. I am still considering whether any alterations to the buildings in Greenwich Park are necessary.

Mr. Moyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of local residents who use the self-service facilities in Greenwich Park think them pretty rotten, and that a large number of foreign visitors who use the facilities think them pretty appalling? Is he not allowing himself a very leisurely timetable for rectifying matters?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. Just now, I gave details of a number of measures to improve the situation, but if my hon. Friend will draw my attention to some evidence for the kind of statement he has made I will look into the matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Benefits

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will now make an increase in the industrial widows' pension which for certain widows has remained unchanged at £1 per week since 1948.

Dr. David Owen: asked the Minister of Social Security when the Government intend to increase National Insurance benefits.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Minister of Social Security when she in-

tends to introduce legislation increasing retirement pensions and other social security benefits; and whether she has yet decided on the amounts of such increases.

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Social Security what plans she has to increase all social security benefits before the coming winter.

The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): I must ask the hon. Members to await the details of legislation which I hope to introduce shortly.

Mrs. Short: While thanking the Minister for repeating an Answer that she has given on many occasions in the House, may I ask her whether she will undertake to consider this small group of women who were so badly treated by the party opposite when it was in power? That party did nothing to relieve them. Will my right hon. Friend relieve some of the anomalies that exist in the treatment of widows?

Miss Herbison: We are giving consideration to the question of the industrial injuries widow.

Mr. Macmillan: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I asked not only whether she would introduce legislation early, but whether she had decided on the amounts of such pensions increases?

Miss Herbison: I realise that point very fully, and I would just ask the hon. Gentleman to have a little patience for not many days.

Mr. Dean: Can the Minister give an assurance that she will deal with existing anomalies, particularly those of the non-pensioner, and widows over 50 who do not get pensions under the present arrangements?

Miss Herbison: Already, in a little over 2½ years, we have dealt with a great many anomalies and brought forward a great many improvements. In our general review, the items to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are being considered.

Mr. Allason: Will the right hon. Lady remember the war widows, who are also on a £1 pension, and take them into consideration for benefits?

Miss Herbison: Certainly.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Minister of Social Security what would be the extra cost of increasing the retirement pension by 20s. per week and 10s. per week, respectively, for a single person, together with proportionate increases in the pension of a married couple and consequential increases in other social security benefits.

Miss Herbison: The extra cost in 1968–69 for National Insurance, industrial injuries and war pensions would be of the order of £480 million and £240 million respectively, less, in each case, savings on supplementary benefits dependent on the level at which these benefits were set.

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Social Security by how much National Insurance benefits should be increased in order to maintain the same relation to average industrial earnings as at the last increase in benefits.

Miss Herbison: On the basis of the increase in average earnings of men as shown by the Ministry of Labour's half-yearly inquiry into earnings of manual workers in manufacturing and some of the principal non-manufacturing industries, 5s. 11d. on the single person's rate of 80s. This reflects the position up to October, 1966, the latest date for which such average earnings figures are available.

Mr. Dean: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that prices have risen more than average earnings since pensions and and other benefits were last increased? Will she take into account this decline in the standard of living in her forthcoming legislation?

Miss Herbison: Certainly we take all these things into account—increases in earnings, and increases in cost of living. I am sure that the hon. Member will be very happy to know that even today the present pension has a better purchasing power than at any time during the 13 years of Tory rule.

Family Allowances

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Social Security whether she will take into account the level of rent payable by low-income families in arriving at her new proposals for family allowances.

Miss Pike: asked the Minister of Social Security, when the Government intend to announce their new proposals for family allowances.

Miss Herbison: I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement which we have promised to make before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Barnes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in London, at least, the level of rents that families have to pay is often the main cause of child poverty where it exists? Would she not also agree that a solution that does not take this factor into account will be disappointing to many families in private rented accommodation?

Miss Herbison: Not only in London but in some other parts of the country there is this difficulty. Again I would ask my hon. Friend to await an announcement.

Miss Pike: Does the Ministers' reply mean that we may expect a statement of some sort this week, or at least within, say, the next 10 days? To revert to the rent problem, will the right hon. Lady read the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), and take into consideration the very realistic proposals he puts forward in that policy declaration on rents?

Miss Herbison: It is rather a pity that when the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) played such an important part in the Tory Administration he did not have those wonderful ideas. I made it perfectly clear some time ago, as has the Prime Minister, that a statement will be made before the Summer Recess. We stick to that announcement.

Mr. Dean: Can the Minister go a little further and say either "Yes" or "No" to one simple question: will the proposals she intends to bring forward be in the Bill to which she has just referred?

Miss Herbison: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the Bill.

Retirement Pensioners (Electricity Charges)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Social Security what action will be taken to help retired people receiving supplementary benefits to pay for the proposed


increase in electricity charges; and if she will make a statement.

Miss Herbison: Electricity prices are only one item in a whole range of commodities and services which are taken into account in the Government's continuous review of the position of people receiving supplementary benefit.

Mr. Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend not consider it only right and justified that pensioners in hardship should receive a supplementary benefit and at least receive the extra amount with which they will be faced in their electricity bills?

Miss Herbison: When giving considerasion to what should be the supplementary pension, we have to take into account not only an increase on one item but in the whole field of prices. Because of that, the Government reached the decision that it would be quite impossible from month to month to make changes in the supplementary pension for old people.

Welfare Policy (Test of Need)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Social Security what is her policy towards the principle of a test of need as the basis of future welfare policy.

Miss Herbison: Benefits which depend on the demonstration of need are necessary in some parts of the social security field, but excessive reliance on them would in my view be highly undesirable.

Mr. Fisher: Has the right hon. Lady read the very interesting and forward-thinking speech made by her right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)? Does that indicate a new approach to Government policy on this matter and perhaps a move away from universality towards selectivity in future Welfare State benefits?

Miss Herbison: If the hon. Member will be kind enough to read the speech which I made in the debate on child poverty, he will find how far we have felt we ought to go on selectivity. In the wider field, if we were to do what I think he is asking, it would lead to disincentives of all kinds and would be a very bad thing indeed.

Child Poverty

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Social Security when she intends to publish her survey of child poverty; and when she plans to introduce legislation to alleviate it.

Miss Herbison: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 11th May, our statement on child poverty will be made before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess. The report of the family survey will be published in advance of the statement.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 746, C. 168–9.]

Mr. Frank Allaun: In preparing her facts, will the Minister bear in mind that the cost of family allowances has remained almost stationary at £150 million whereas the cost of Income Tax relief for children has increased by £130 million in two years to £630 million? Could not the latter help to pay for the former?

Miss Herbison: I can assure my hon. Friend that in our examination of these matters we have taken this into account.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Can the right hon. Lady explain how her mind is working in relation to what has been called Income Tax in reverse in a speech by the Minister without Portfolio in Cambridge yesterday?

Miss Herbison: This matter also was fully discussed in the day's debate on child poverty. Perhaps the hon. Member will have a look at that debate.

European Economic Community

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Social Security (1) whether she will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will protect old age non-pensioners from any adverse effects of Great Britain joining the Common Market; and if she will make a statement;
(2) what increase in National Insurance pensions she estimates will be necessary to offset any adverse effects of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.

Miss Herbison: I would refer the hon. Member to the speech which the Prime Minister made to the House on 8th May. [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 746, C. 1061.]

Mr. Higgins: Is the right hon. Lady aware that that is a very evasive Answer? Could she give a specific answer to the first Question? Is there an assurance that the old-age non-pensioner will be protected and, if so, how is this to be done in view of the lack of facilities for doing it at the moment?

Miss Herbison: The non-pensioner who is in need can benefit under the supplementary benefits provisions. Those provisions have greatly improved since we became the Government.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Prime Minister's speech yesterday did not cover these points at all? Is she aware that I put Questions to the Prime Minister on the specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), but they also drew an unsatisfactory answer? Will she cease to hide behind the kind of Answer she has given this afternoon?

Miss Herbison: I am sorry that the hon. Lady thinks I am hiding behind the Answer. If any Government have done more for the non-pensioner [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—Yes, again I insist on this. If any Government have done more for the non-pensioner than this Government, I would like to know of it. The very fact that since November last year, 400,000 more old people have been receiving supplementary benefit, is proof that we have done more.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Catering

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is satisfied that trade union conditions apply in all the dining rooms, tea rooms, smoking rooms and bars for which the Catering Sub-Committee are responsible; that customer choice is adequate in each; that supplies of food are of the highest quality; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
I am at present in touch with trade union representatives with a view to enlisting their co-operation in all appropriate areas in the running of the Department. I have particularly in mind the

setting up of Whitley-style machinery for joint consultation. Customer choice is as adequate as our economic resources permit. The standard of food is kept as high as possible—within the limits imposed by the means available.

Mr. Rankin: My I urge my hon. Friend to press ahead with the attempt to establish trade union conditions in the Refreshment Department of the House of Commons? That should be easier here than in many other places.
On customer choice, is he aware that the 11s. 6d. diners had a choice of 17 different items, and that the 7s. eaters had a choice of seven items. Is he aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be brief.

Mr. Rankin: I have one or two items in the Question, Mr. Speaker, and they are important. Will my hon. Friend notice that the 7s. eater deserves a little more consideration? To take one item from the 11s. 6d. group and give it to the 7s. group is a good start, but will he take that process a little further?

Mr. Maxwell: The House will be pleased to know that the trade union representatives have reacted positively to the suggestion that Whitley-type machinery be set up. I hope soon to announce further arrangements, including a wage increase which is so desperately needed.
As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, customer choice is very closely related to what the customer is prepared to pay. Furthermore, it was economically necessary, in view of the wastage of food which was known to occur in the running of the Department and the consequent financial losses, to reduce customer choice in certain rooms. I feel that this approach is preferable to any lowering of standards.

Mr. Dance: asked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware of the restriction imposed on Members of the House in their selection of wines and tobacco, details of which have been sent to him; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that, as in the past, Members can select wines and tobacco to their taste.

Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
Stocks of wine have recently been run down, because in the present financial situation the Refreshment Department cannot continue to allow a great deal of its cash to be tied up in such large stocks. This run-down was preparatory to putting the supply of wine on an entirely new basis, which will relieve the Department of the need to tie up capital in stocks of wine, and will also improve the choice. The change will take effect in the very near future.
I am aware of no restriction on the selection of tobacco.

Mr. Dance: Is the hon. Member aware that for roughly the best part of a week, ending last Tuesday, no carafe white wine was available either in the Members' or in the Strangers' Dining Rooms, and that there was virtually no choice of tobacco or cigarettes? In fact, last Monday at one time we ran completely out. Does he think that it is a good advertisement for Britain that the Palace of Westminster should have such very poor stocks? Is he further aware that it is soul destroying—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have long questions like this. Mr. Maxwell.

Mr. Maxwell: I am not aware that there has been any restriction on the selection of wines. There has for a period of two or three days been no service of a particular carafe wine due to shortage of staff, but this has now been remedied.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Now that the financial situation is improving, can the hon. Gentleman say when the promised increase in salaries and wages will be paid?

Mr. Maxwell: I can say that an increase has been promised, and I hope the increase will be paid as from October of this year.

Later—

Mr. Dance: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance. There may be some misunderstanding that in my supplementary question I was insinuating that this might be soul-destroying for hon. Members of this House. I did not mean that. I meant for members of our trusted staff.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Experiments and Patients

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to ensure that the Medical Research Council's advice in regard to experiments on patients is brought to the attention of hospital management bodies and staffs.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): It has been.

Mrs. Butler: Since my hon. Friend apparently does not think it worth while to draw the attention of hospital authorities again to this circular despite the fact that Dr. Pappworth cites in his book a number of cases which have been very disquieting which have taken place since the last circular was issued, does not my hon. Friend think that he owes it to the public to hold a full inquiry into these cases and others which have come to light since the book was published?

Mr. Snow: The comprehensive guidance issued by the Medical Research Council in 1964 is, so far as we are aware, fully understood by the profession. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any evidence that this guidance has not been followed since the circular was issued in September, 1964. The figures given by Dr. Pappworth in his book are extremely misleading about people in this country. For example, out of a total of 206 cases mentioned, 125 refer to countries other than the United Kingdom, mostly the U.S.A. I shall be pleased to give my hon. Friend a breakdown of the remaining figures, which do not justify the sort of criticism which Dr. Pappworth made.

Dr. David Kerr: Will my hon. Friend go a little further and give some little reassurance to the public which has been justifiably alarmed by reports in Dr. Pappworth's book? Will he assure the public that the research which goes on in the National Health Service is conducted in a responsible and humane way with every consideration for the patient's safety and welfare?

Mr. Snow: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, who is a member of the profession, will have read this circular


and that he will agree that there does not seem to be much room for improving on it. A resolution is being submitted to the B.M.A. Conference to have this matter looked at again. Speaking personally, my interest in this book lapsed when I saw that Dr. Pappworth was equating British doctors with Nazi concentration camp doctors.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement regarding experiments on patients in National Health hospitals.

Mr. Snow: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply on 31st May, and to mine on the 12th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler).—[Vol. 747, c. 35; Vol. 748, c. 21.]

Mr. Crouch: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is considerable public concern about the question of experiments on patients in hospitals? I was hoping that he would make a statement this afternoon giving the House some assurance, either as to the figures or that such experiments were not taking place.

Mr. Snow: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my answer to the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). This gives me the opportunity to elaborate on the breakdown of the cases referred to by Dr. Pappworth in his book. As I have already said, of 206 cases quoted 125 referred to countries outside the United Kingdom. Three referred to Scotland, and 78 to England and Wales. Only six of these 78 apparently took place after 1963—bearing in mind that the advice to the profession was given in 1964—and only two appear, from an examination of the dates on which the experiments were reported, to have been carried out since the guidance was issued in September, 1964. Both these cases were with the consent of the patients concerned.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Could the Parliamentary Secretary also reassure the House on a matter on which there is some misunderstanding? Will he confirm that patients in teaching hospitals cannot be used for demonstration purposes if they do not wish to be so used?

Mr. Snow: This is certainly the case, and the provisions of our guidance adequately cover that point.

Hospitals (National Health Service Support)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health whether, in cases in which the closure of, or withdrawal of, National Health Service support from a hospital is contemplated, he will provide an opportunity by way of public inquiry for the views of those affected to be put forward and considered by an independent person.

Mr. Snow: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that if the Minister of Transport wants to close a railway station, the people concerned have a right to state their case at a public inquiry? Why, when an unelected hospital board proposes to close a hospital, should not the ordinary citizen affected have a similar right to state his point of view to an independent person? Is he aware that my constituents, in the case of St. Teresa's Wimbledon, will simply not accept closure on the unsupported views of Lord Addison?

Mr. Snow: There is not, and as far as I am aware there has never been, any suggestion to close St. Teresa's Hospital. Since there is another side to this coin, may I draw to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, who I know looks at these matters objectively, to a letter which was published in the edition of the British Medical Journal of the 17th instant, page 767, from a consultant—a Roman Catholic—from the same hospital?

Artificial Kidney Machines (Croydon)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Health what artificial kidney machine facilities exist in Croydon hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Snow: Facilities are available at Mayday Hospital to treat certain cases of acute renal failure. Treatment for chronic renal failure is concentrated on specialised units. One such unit is already functioning in the area of the South-West


Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, and two more are planned.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a certain feeling, justified or otherwise, locally in the Croydon area that arrangements are not as satisfactory as they should be? Does his Ministry intend to encourage people locally who supported a fund? Is it to be the purpose of the Ministry to help such groups?

Mr. Snow: According to our records, in 1966–67 only three patients required referral from Mayday Hospital to London teaching hospitals for treatment on an artificial kidney machine. As to local charitable organisations which desire to provide money by means of public appeals, it would be as well if the purpose of the appeal was first brought to the attention of the Regional Hospital Board, which could give good guidance in these matters.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Mayday Hospital is in my constituency? I am in very close contact with it. I have never had a single complaint of this nature from that hospital in 20 years?

Mr. Snow: I am very glad to have that observation on the record.

Operation Procedures

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking to prevent a repetition of the recent incident in a Birmingham hospital when a limb was amputated in error.

Mr. Snow: Hospital authorities have again been asked to review their procedures and to ensure that all staff concerned are made aware of them. My right hon. Friend will consider whether any further advice or guidance is called for when he receives the report of the inquiry to be held into the Birmingham incident.

Mr. Price: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that we are very satisfied that this inquiry is being set up? However, as it is likely to take some time, together with possible litigation which may follow it, to what extent is the Ministry now examining the very great need to take a completely new look at the whole question of avoiding errors in hospital?

Mr. Snow: In 1966 the Royal College of Surgeons set up a committee on surgical accidents, with which my right hon. Friend's medical staff kept in close touch. The Committee came to the conclusion that the most effective contribution that the Royal College could make was through its normal educational facilities. As to the length of time which may pass whilst the inquiry is taking place and as a result of other things which may occur arising from that, I think my hon. Friend may rest assured that my right hon. Friend is deeply concerned about this incident.

Mr. Braine: How many such cases have been reported? I believe that there were seven in 1958 and nineteen last year. Is the number increasing? Has any analysis been made by the Department of the causes? Is there a common fact? For example, is it the fact that these incidents occur when there is an emergency and the surgeon who operates has not previously seen the patient? Is this a reflection of the increasing load on hospital doctors?

Mr. Snow: There are many imponderable factors as to the causation of these regrettable incidents. The figures for claims reported to my Department for wrong operations were three in 1962, ten in 1963, six in 1964, and seven in 1965. I should require notice before answering as to the cause of each individual case.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Cigarettes (Gift Coupon Schemes)

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to stop the development of a cigarette coupon war between the cigarette manufacturers.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take to prevent the implementation of recent proposals to extend gift-coupon schemes aimed at increasing cigarette sales, in view of their proved connection with lung cancer.

Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend is considering what further steps can be taken.

Dr. Dunwoody: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the irresponsible action taken by Gallahers last week shows a callous and cynical indifference to the


death rate from cancer of the lung? Over 30,000 people will die in this country this year. Many of them would like to give up the habit which is causing the disease from which they will die. Will he assure the House that if a cigarette coupon war does start he will take action to ban cigarette coupons?

Mr. Snow: There is no doubt but that the discouragement of cigarette smoking has now been prejudiced by commercial rivalry. My right hon. Friend is awaiting advice from the highest medical authority on certain conclusions which were reached by the industry's own research council.

Mr. Frank Allaun: As the Minister's efforts at voluntary limitation have been rejected both by Imperials and Gallahers, will the Government now consider legislative steps? Is it not obvious that this £25 million a year scheme would not be introduced if it did not have the effect of increasing sales?

Mr. Snow: Such steps would be a matter for my right hon. Friend to consider, and it would be wrong if I were to give the impression what steps should follow the recommendations of the industry's own research committee or of the Minister's own advisers is 100 per cent. certain. The question of the steps which are needed needs very careful consideration.

Earl of Dalkeith: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the Government could serve the public interest better by taking more active steps to investigate possible remedies which would assist smokers to give up smoking and that they could indulge in more research and more publicity of remedies which are available?

Mr. Snow: I should have thought that the Government's publicity campaign on smoking was a very successful one. The need for more research has never been a conditioning factor for solving this intractable problem.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend will remember that the Minister was good enough to receive a deputation of distinguished doctors and others organised by the Advertising Inquiry Council some time ago. Would he agree to receive a similar deputation in the near

future before he decides what further steps can be taken?

Mr. Snow: I think that my right hon. Friend would be very pleased to receive any proposition from my hon. Friend. As to receiving further deputations, it may be advisable to wait advice from the high medical authority to which I have referred.

QUESTION TO MINISTER

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: On a point of order. Is it a fact, or not, Mr. Speaker, that you have received a request from the Minister of Transport to answer Question No. 78, in view of the serious news from Stratford this morning?

Mr. Speaker: I have not had any information from the Minister that she would answer that Question.

Mr. Peter Walker: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) submitted to your office last Thursday a request for a Private Notice Question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to indicate, in a question to the Chair, the nature of a Private Notice Question which has been refused.

Mr. Walker: rose—

Mr. Speaker: This is a very serious matter. I hope that the hon. Member will note what I say.

Mr. Walker: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, but last Thursday, on the Business Question, my hon. Friend asked the Leader of the House whether the Minister of Transport would issue a statement on the question of the closing of the terminal at Stratford. In reply to my hon. Friend, he said:
…I shall communicate the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend. If necessary, I am sure that she will accede to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 793.]
As, this morning, there is a closure at that terminal, my hon. Friend has his Question No. 78 down on the topic. He presumed, in view of that assurance by the Leader of the House, he would have no need for a Private Notice Question.


May I ask the Minister of Transport to reply to the Question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can ask the Minister of Transport, but I do not hear any answer.

Mr. Webster: Further to that point of order. What redress has the House, Mr. Speaker? Can you advise the House how we can protect ourselves when we are assured by the Leader of the House that the Minister of Transport will give an answer? How can you help in that?

Mr. Speaker: One of the old political gambits from both sides of the House is to pray the Speaker in aid for something which is by way of being political. I cannot give political advice, only procedural advice.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

War Toys

Mrs. Anne Kerr: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 3rd July, I shall call attention to the need for a ban on war toys, and move a Resolution.

Scotland (Teacher Shortage)

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 3rd July, I shall call attention to the shortage of teachers in Scotland, and move a Resolution.

Town Planning Applications

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 3rd July, I shall call attention to the difficulties for neighbours when town planning applications are submitted, and move a Resolution.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

ADEN

3.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I begin, first, with an apology and then an explanation—[Laughter.] I am very glad to see the House in this mood. It may help.
The apology is that the House has been asking for a long time for a very full statement about policy in South Arabia. I am about to make it, but it does mean that I shall make a rather longer speech than the House normally likes, or than I should like to make. I hope the House will accept it.
The explanation is that, as the House knows, there is an emergency special session of the General Assembly of the United Nations which I am to attend. I have deferred my journey to New York in order to make this statement of Government policy, but I will have to leave before the end of the debate, and I hope that the House will understand and accept the reasons for this.
The problem of South Arabia has, of course, been greatly affected by the aims of the United Arab Republic in the Middle East. Recent events will undoubtedly have a tremendous effect on this. Whether these events will lead to the United Arab Republic withdrawing from the Yemen, whether they will alter relationships between Arab States, it is not possible to say with any certainty at the moment.
It is impossible at this moment to foresee how events may work out, and, therefore, how the proposals on South Arabia which I am about to make may have to be reconsidered. But, clearly, throughout this debate we will have these larger considerations of the Middle East situation very much in mind. May I say that I hope that nothing will be said in the debate to make the handling of these wider problems more difficult.
If I may turn to the background to the decisions which I want to announce to the House, when our Conservative predecessors in office decided to aim at ending the dependent relationship of South Arabia with Great Britain, they also aimed to leave a united territory behind and to seek to avoid fragmentation. But the process of unification was only started


in 1958, and by 1964 Ministers of the day declared that there should be independence by 1968. That left precious little time in which to create a sense of unity, particularly when we consider the ages of disunity which had preceded 1958 and the primitive conditions of much of the territory.
It also meant a dangerously rapid pace of development where the particular problem of Aden was concerned. Many Arabs from the hinterland know Aden well and understand it. But very few Adenis know the Protectorate, and few understand the importance of friendly association with the hinterland.
Time was needed to promote full understanding, and for an understanding of the mutual benefits which would flow from greater unity. Yet, I repeat, the programme left very little time indeed. This is why we, when in opposition, had strong doubts about the way the merger was brought about.
The previous Government had intended that the merger would be followed by further integration of the Government and economy of Aden and the Protectorate so that the central Government of the territory could be the effective Government for the whole before independence. But when we came into office we found that no such progress had proved possible.
There had been an attempt to arrange a conference in December, 1963, on constitutional advance, but this had been frustrated by non-co-operation exacerbated by acts of violence. When the conference was finally held in the summer of 1964 it achieved no constitutional progress.
But the two conclusions of that conference which did emerge were to cause much difficulty later on. The first was the formula of independence "by 1968". This not only shortened the time available to achieve progress, but also gave the opponents of the Federation a time limit against which they could work. Secondly, the conference report looked to a further conference which would discuss not only how independence would be brought about, but also the possible conclusion of a defence agreement in which Britain would continue to have some defence facilities in Aden.
This was the situation which we inherited. Given the doubts we had about how it had been brought about, we nevertheless tried to make it work. We made repeated attempts with the co-operation of the Federal Government to arrange further constitutional discussions. None succeeded.
The major factor in the lack of success was the campaign of armed subversion supported and increasingly organised by the United Arab Republic in the Yemen and carried out on Federal territory.
I do not propose to examine whether a different policy, adopted earlier on, concerning either South Arabia or the Yemen might have prevented this. The fact is that by the time we inherited these problems in 1964 the United Arab Republic was committed to this campaign.
I know that the House is in absolute agreement in its condemnation of this campaign of intimidation and violence. In so far as this terrorism was directed at us, we should note that it continued long after we announced our firm intention of leaving South Arabia. In so far as it was directed at Arabs—and it is Arabs who have been by far the most numerous victims—it has betrayed the ideal of Arab unity which the United Arab Republic professes. This quite vicious campaign has been conducted by people safely outside the territory with cynical disregard for the true interests of the Arabs of South Arabia.
I do not think it unfair to contrast this with the courage of those South Arabians who remained in the territory and came together to form the present Federal Government. They have had the wisdom to sink their regional interests for a wider cause, and it is to their enlightened approach to the necessary democratic advances in the country that the future political life of South Arabia owes a very great deal.
Despite the toll which terrorism has taken among them and among their officials and friends, they have continued to play a central part in political development of the territory. Even so, nobody doubts the need for a broader and more representative government.
I turn to the questions of protecting the Federation and of the British military position with which we were also faced


on taking office. The 1959 Treaty between the United Kingdom and the Federation was a treaty between the United Kingdom and a dependent territory. It could not, by its nature, survive as the basis of relationship between two independent States. It had to be either replaced or allowed to lapse.
The Federal Government had come to believe—or had been led to believe—that it would be replaced by a defence treaty in new form. But by 1966 the declaration of unanimity of purpose which opened the Report of the 1964 conference had been vitiated. Many of the Adenis who had signed the Report had gone into opposition, and the conference which the Report envisaged had never, as I have said, been held because it was impossible to arrange it. Apart from this, we had to consider also the true interests of the South Arabian people and their Government. Though our military protection might help them, our treaty and military position also attracted attack to them. If I may say so, I do not think that this factor has been accorded enough weight in the discussions which we have had in the House on this subject.
It is true that pan-Arab nationalism, as led by the U.A.R., calls for social revolution and has attacked the so-called reactionary and feudal Sultans. But recent Middle East history has many examples of the U.A.R. being able to live with Arab régimes it does not like.
Events, in fact, showed that the Federal Government and South Arabia generally were under attack not so much in their own right, but because of their association with us. And this despite the fact that we accept Arab nationalism and have tried in South Arabia to work with it.
Because of our base and our defence arrangements, the Federal Government were attacked as imperialist stooges. Because of our support, they were described as puppets. The attacks on their supporters and officials were declared to be attacks on collaborators with the imperialists. The object of the whole campaign of subversion and terrorism was to attack the British position and the British relationship. It therefore became clear that the British association was

more of a handicap to South Arabia than a protection.
Therefore, when it came to 1966 and we had to make some decisions, this was one reason why we decided not to have a defence treaty with the successor Government. The other reason has often been explained in the House. We concluded that we should no longer maintain a base in South Arabia. The new pattern of British defence arrangements which was emerging made it both unnecessary and undesirable. Having reached that decision, we concluded that it would be quite wrong to have a defence treaty with the successor Government of South Arabia, since without any military position in the territory we could not honour its provisions.
And on top of this, we foresaw extreme difficulty in maintaining a military position when it became more and more apparent that the defence of the base against the local people who opposed it was becoming a quite disproportionate burden to carry.
On the other hand, we recognised that South Arabia would still need our help in ways that did not weaken her politically in the Arab world. We welcomed and, so far as we could, we tried to assist her efforts to develop closer relations with neighbouring Arab countries. Equally important, we recognised that the Defence Review decisions had serious consequences for the South Arabian forces. These forces were not balanced forces for an independent State. They lacked certain arms which our forces had, until then, supplied. This, clearly, had to be put right.
Because of this, we had discussions in the middle of 1966, and as a result of this we committed ourselves to spend over £5 million on the transformation and re-equipment of South Arabia's forces, and to contribute nearly £31 million to their recurrent costs in the period up to 1971. In addition to maintaining civil economic aid until independence, we also agreed, at the same time, to continue economic aid after independence at levels to be decided later. Under this heading we have since decided to make grants totalling £9 million in the three years after independence for the support of the South Arabian Government budget as well as making available an interest-free


loan at a level to he worked out. We have also decided to give appropriate technical assistance. Altogether, we agreed to provide up to £50 million in respect of the three years after independence.
I now turn to the situation in 1967. It is a fact of life that there are people who prefer to have a grievance around which they can organise politically rather than to accept a solution or, in this case, decolonisation. As a result of this, we continued to face subversion from the Yemen and the resulting deadlock on constitutional advance.
The United Nations Mission to Aden was frustrated by the extremists. The Mission has remained on the job, but it has so far had no more success than we have had in persuading the two extremist organisations to join in round-table discussions. Nevertheless, I still believe that the United Nations can play an important—and perhaps vital—rôle in helping to bring about the broad-based government we all seek.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Does my right hon. Friend confirm that the representatives of F.L.O.S.Y. were due to meet members of the Aden Mission on the day the war in the Middle East broke out and that it is hoped that they will do so as soon as conditions permit?

Mr. Brawn: I will come later to F.L.O.S.Y. I am delighted my hon. Friend has up-to-date knowledge about it. But there is a good deal more to it than that.
What we have to do is ensure that, with independence in 1968 advancing steadily, the country is enabled to withstand the sizeable and continuing threat. This brings me to the basis of our present decisions.
The House already knows that the serious situation which had developed in this way by the early part of this year has occupied a good deal of my time. As early as February, I recalled the High Commissioner for consultations and my right hon. Friend had two days' intensive consultations with the Federal Government in March. In that month, and again in April, we had discussions with Federal Ministers in London.
After the breakdown of the U.N. Mission's visit and the situation caused by

the strikes at that time, Her Majesty's Government decided that my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Shackleton, should go to South Arabia as our personal representative on the spot, to help our authorities there and to see the situation for himself. He paid two extended visits. Towards the end of these, I decided to replace the previous High Commissioner by Sir Humphrey Trevelyan and the arrival of Sir Humphrey and the second visit of Lord Shackelton overlapped by two weeks.
Her Majesty's Government have now received recommendations on which Lord Shackleton, Sir Humphrey Trevelyan and our military commanders in Aden are all agreed. I should like to add and to emphasise that Her Majesty's Government have accepted all these recommendations. All the proposals which I am about to commend to the House have the full support of the principal men who are on the spot, whether they arrived comparatively recently or have been there over a longer period.
Her Majesty's Government have now decided on a package of proposals, all of which, taken together, constitute a major decision of policy.
The first group of decisions concerns constitutional advance. We have decided that we should accept, in respect of Aden State, a draft Constitution which the South Arabian Government are circulating to the member States of the Federation for an independent South Arabian State.
The new Constitution will be modern in form, will provide for an effective Government, for human rights, for eventual elections on the basis of a universal adult franchise and for the integration of Aden and the present Federal capital of A1 Ittihad in a capital territory for the whole State. There will be provision within the Constitution for the immediate formation of a central, more broadly-based caretaker Government as soon as this becomes possible.
The Constitution is largely based on recommendations by two distinguished constitutional advisers to the Federal Government, Sir Gawain Bell and Sir Ralph Hone, whose report to the Federal Government was placed in the Library of the House last year.
Though South Arabia is not yet independent, we are prepared for such a Constitution to come into force before independence provided that certain essential transitional provisions are made to cover the remaining period of our sovereignty in Aden State and our responsibility for its welfare.
We regard a new Constitution as essential now. The present Federal Constitution is cumbrous and rigid and is a positive obstacle to democratisation, economic rationalisation and progress. We are confident that, when the new Constitution is introduced, it will both allow and generate the right kind of political progress.
The second group in the package involves action under four heads to strengthen the future defence of South Arabia.

Mr. Sandys: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the Constitution, will he say whether the introduction of the new Constitution before independence will imply that responsibility for law and order will be transferred to the Federal authorities before independence?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that I can say that. One of the things we have to discuss when we have gone beyond this point is at what stage and in what manner transfer of responsibility for law and order is effected. This needs a good deal more discussion.
As I was saying, the second group in the package involves action under four heads to strengthen the future defence of South Arabia. I have listened carefully to the arguments on this subject put forward in the House, from whichever side. Without agreeing with all that has been said, I recognise the force of some of the arguments and have given them very full consideration.
We recognise that the most determined efforts at political improvement could be undermined by continued armed subversion fomented from abroad. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the South Arabian Armed Forces need some more help, and that there should be additional money, assistance and equipment for the Army, the Air Force, and the forces in the Eastern Aden Protectorate. We have also decided on a

major reassurance to the new State which I shall describe in a moment.
Concerning the Army, we have informed the Federal Government that we are prepared to pay for the South Arabian Army to be re-equipped with more modern small arms—for example, the self-loading rifle instead of the Lee Enfield—to obtain additional armoured cars and field artillery, and to have the assistance of a British military aid mission after independence which will help with advice and training. We will also help with such things as communications, base maintenance, and with some medical staff for the Federal forces hospital. All of this represents a very important strengthening of the Armed Forces of South Arabia.
As regards the Air Force, we have agreed to finance the provision and operation of eight Hunter aircraft, which would be additional to the jet Provost ground attack aircraft which the Air Force is already to have. The continued incitement to subversion in the States outside Aden, and the threat from across the frontier, in cynical disregard of the interests of the people and of Britain's departure from the territory, create a clear need to ensure that a South Arabian Air Force is equipped more powerfully than it would otherwise need to be. We have accepted this need and decided to help to meet it.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: As there is only one Adeni pilot, who will fly these aircraft?

Mr. Brown: This is a matter which will be settled in the same way as the problem of who will fly the jet Provosts. This is a matter which is being arranged already. Arrangements are being made for pilots, as the hon. Gentleman clearly knows, and I imagine that the same arrangements will be made for these. They will not of course, be R.A.F. pilots.
Her Majesty's Government have also considered the problem of the unfederated States of the Eastern Aden Protectorate. In the modern world they can hardly stand on their own. Our policy is to encourage these States to join the Federation. But it now seems unlikely that they will commit themselves to independence. This leaves a practical problem


of considerable importance. Peace at this moment is maintained not by British arms, but, first, by the State forces of the Eastern States, and secondly, by the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion. The latter is almost entirely an Arab force, but it is British-paid and, at present, British-controlled.
It operates throughout the Eastern Protectorate, and is not confined to any single State. If it were disbanded, and current external pressures continued to operate against South Arabia, there could be serious risk of widespread disorder. Clearly, this risk on the flank of the newly independent State of South Arabia cannot be ignored. We are, therefore, informing the Federal Government and the Governments of the three Eastern States that we are prepared to pay for the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion for two years after independence, provided that satisfactory command arrangements can be worked out among the States concerned.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The right hon. Gentleman has enumerated a number of items of expenditure. Can he say upon which Department, here at Westminster, it is proposed that these should fall?

Mr. Brown: That is a very valid question, but it hardly occurs at this particular point. When I have finished outlining the whole package I will be very happy to deal with it.
We are proposing co-ordination by representatives of the Federal Government and of the three Eastern States to control and co-ordinate its operations. If these arrangements can be made, the Legion would thus remain in being, and this would help to preserve order and give the Eastern States and the Federation time to work out after independence the form of their merger, if they have not already done so before independence.
We are also informing the Federal Government that if it becomes possible to negotiate merger terms in earnest for the Eastern Aden Protectorate States we are prepared to consider helping the Government with the economic problems which the merger would create, and among those especially where State customs revenue is concerned.
I now come to the major reassurance I mentioned earlier. We recognise that

the South Arabian Government will face a difficult period immediately after independence. It will then be fully responsible for the entire territory, including Aden; but the subversive and terrorist campaign may well continue.
The South Arabian Government will wish to make reconciliation and public order its first preoccupations. But we recognise that there is some danger that an attempt might be made to disrupt this by military aggression from outside the country.
In looking at this problem the aim should be to assist South Arabia to stand on her own feet, not simply to prop her up. Her Majesty's Government, for their part, have, therefore, decided to station a strong naval force in South Arabian waters for the critical first six months after independence. It will include an attack carrier. [Laughter.] I do not think that is regarded as a joke in South Arabia. If hon. Gentlemen opposite keep their attention on the problem that we are discussing, and not ride off on to others, maybe we would do better.
If military aggression against the independent State should occur, the aircraft in that force would be committed to the repulse of that aggression.
We have also informed the Federal Government that we are prepared to keep a force of V-bombers, with their extensive radius of action and their capacity to carry heavy loads of conventional weapons, within easy range of South Arabia for the critical months after independence. They will be stationed on the Island of Masirah.
The V-bombers will be available for the six-month period of the naval force and for as long thereafter as Her Majesty's Government may determine, according to circumstances ruling at the time. I want to be quite clear about this. This force, together with the naval force, will constitute a very powerful conventional deterrent which anyone minded to consider aggression will have to take very much into account.
These measures are designed to ensure the security of the independent State against external aggression, and I am confident will add greatly to achieving that object.

Mr. John Lee: If this carries on beyond the six months, do I take it


that the basis of payment for this will be altered? In other words, it will not be a charge on the British taxpayer if it should become an open-ended commitment?

Mr. Brown: The V-bombers will be somewhere, anyway. The naval force will finish at the end of six months, but the V-bombers may go on thereafter. If they were not going there, they would he going somewhere else, so my hon. Friend is bothering himself about additional expense unnecessarily.
On the other hand, I am sure that it is my hon. Friend's desire, as it is mine, that this country shall come to independence and that we shall be able to withdraw ourselves from its territory. The proposals that I am making, which, I repeat, have been taken after listening to a lot of argument and advice from all kinds of quarters, seem to me to be the right ones to support what my hon. Friend and I want to do.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is my right hon. Friend intending to tell us, now or later, what is the cost of all the proposals that he is making? Would he also explain to us how he believes that subversion can be dealt with by V-bombers or aircraft carriers?

Mr. Brown: I dealt with subversion on one side. We are dealing with something else, too, and that is the threat of open, external aggression. V-bombers may not be much use for subversion—that is the understatement of the afternoon—but they could be a very powerful deterrent to open external aggression.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: In the proposals which my right hon. Friend is outlining for a head-on clash with Arab nationalism, will he say how he reconciles his proposals for financing, arming and protecting the South Arabian Federation and accepting their draft Constitution with the excellent point which he made earlier, that by going too far in we expose them to the charge of being puppets and thus being undermined by their own people?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend, who was, as I remember, in favour of staying on longer than I wanted to stay on, is not very well placed for accusing me of seeking a head-on clash with Arab nationalism. I am not seeking a head-on

clash with Arab nationalism—quite the reverse. I am often attacked for not doing enough on that. On the other hand, I have come to the conclusion that here is an Arab State, with Arab nationalists in the Government which, I would hope, will be reinforced by other Arab nationalists currently out of the Government which should be given the chance to exert its independence as an Arab nationalist State.
I come to the third part of the package —I insist that this is a package—of decisions which we have made.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman was asked a question by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Could he give us an answer? Since the closing down of the base was justified, in the main, on the ground that it would save money, in view of all the additional expenditure which the right hon. Gentleman has announced today what will be the final saving on the closing of the base?

Mr. Brown: I was trying to give a balanced package of three sets of proposals which go together. The House—or some parts of it—as always, is more interested in defence than in anything else. May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman and others listen to the whole package. I dealt with the constitutional proposals. I dealt with the defence of the new State. The third part of the package is the question of internal security in Aden. If, at the end of that, I have not dealt with all the things which the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I should have dealt with, it will then be for him to ask me a question. But I beg him, for the first time for a long time, to see the matter as one rounded whole. He would have helped us a long time ago if he had done that.
I come to the third part of the package of decisions, and this relates to internal security in Aden. When I asked Sir Humphrey Trevelyan to go to Aden he and I agreed that he must give first and paramount attention to the question of internal security and concentrate on two things: first, to deal more effectively and severely with those practising violence; and, secondly, to ensure, at the same time, that this was supported by actions which would provide scope for


more constructive activity by the organisations at present outside the Government.
The High Commissioner and my noble Friend have given me their recommendations. It is clear that a major handicap for the authorities has been the intimidation of witnesses and jurors which has effectively prevented the trial of known terrorists. The absence of criminal convictions and the scrupulous observance of the principle that people detained without trial are not convicts has left detainees in a situation which has contained far too little sanction against terrorists. This must stop.
I have, therefore, decided, with a good deal of regret, that trial by jury shall be suspended in respect of terrorists' offences, subject, of course, to suitable safeguards for the defence of accused persons. Suspension of trial by jury is always a serious matter and I have thought long and deeply about it before concluding that this step is right. I should add that the Chief Justice of Aden has himself urged that this step should be taken. But the other side of this coin is to make a special effort to open the way to reconciliation.
The High Commissioner and Lord Shackleton have also recommended—and I have accepted—that the proscription of political parties and even of other organisations is pointless. Experience has shown that it does not seriously inhibit terrorist activity. But experience has also shown that it is a bar to useful negotiation. I have always recognised the illogicality, pointed out in the House from time to time, that one organisation which has maintained violence is proscribed and the other which does exactly the same has not been proscribed.
I have, therefore, agreed with the recommendation by my noble Friend Lord Shackleton and by Sir Humphrey Trevelyan that the ban on the National Liberation Front should be lifted. We are also considering the question of releasing some of the detainees, but it is too early to make a firm announcement on this at the moment.
These measures should help people to pull back from violence to peaceful political activities; but more is obviously required on the political side. We can-

not expect more than they are doing already from the Federal Government and the political parties in Aden who have stuck to constitutional activity. I have often told the House that I want to get in touch with the leaders of the extremist organisations outside the territory. The Federal Government, for their part, are also ready to have these organisations work in peaceful co-operation, leading to their taking their proper place in the government of the territory. I had hoped and I still hope, to arrange a round-table discussion of all the parties concerned.
I am sorry to tell the House that F.L.O.S.Y., including both A1 Asnag and Mackawee, have so far failed to respond to any of these efforts. The N.L.F. has so far also failed to respond. The United Nations Mission had not made any real progress in its efforts to talk to these people up to the time that the Middle East crisis made everything that much more difficult.
I want to make it clear, however, that we shall welcome any readiness to talk shown by the extremist leaders—if, in the case of F.L.O.S.Y., the Egyptians who now dominate it will allow them to talk. I know that the Federal Government will also welcome the opportunity.
I hope very much, too, that the United Nations will find a way to give the help which I have always said could be crucial in promoting the formation of the central caretaker Government for which the United Nations resolutions call. We start from a position of full support for the existing central Government. We entirely concur in their decision that they must go ahead with constitutional reform now because time is so short. But we also welcome their intention to provide in the new Constitution for the speedy formation of a central caretaker Government if and when co-operation from others makes this possible.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: As my right hon. Friend knows, I came back from New York not many hours ago. Is he aware that the United Nations Mission was informed that representatives of F.L.O.S.Y. would be in New York and would be available to meet other people on the day that the hostilities in the Middle East started and that the information in New York was, at least until my right hon. Friend made his statement


today, that these representatives were still planning to go to New York? Surely my right hon. Friend knows that.

Mr. Brown: I must tell my hon. Friend, who is very optimistic in these things, that the number of places where F.L.O.S.Y. representatives were going to turn up over the last few months is pretty well legion. I must tell him that I have accepted a number of propositions, I have appointed Ministerial colleagues to go and I have made the arrangements. The trouble has always been that the F.L.O.S.Y. representatives have never found it convenient to get there.
I therefore stand on what I have said. If F.L.O.S.Y. or the N.L.F. representatives are ready to talk, the Federal Government are ready to talk with them. We certainly are. What is essential now is that somebody comes to a meeting place and we have the talks. What happens, however, and has happened all the way through, is that they are willing to promise to come but find it very difficult to come. I would say to my hon. Friend that a day or two's quiet about this, given the situation in the Middle East, is probably the right advice at this moment.
Having given the package, perhaps I may now answer the question which I was asked. I again insist that the package—the Constitution, the defence and the internal security—must all be taken together. I told the House earlier that we had committed ourselves to spending £50 million over the three years after independence. The cost of all the various things which we are proposing to do will involve us in another £9 million or £10 million. One can never be quite sure of these things, so let us take £10 million. We know then that we are on the safe side. That is over the whole period. It is a 20 per cent. increase on what we have already undertaken to do.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman says "over the whole period"—

Mr. Brown: Over three years. It is a 20 per cent. increase on what we have already undertaken to do.
I now turn to the independence. We consider that having taken these decisions, having made these announcements, we have established the conditions in which South Arabia can become inde-

pendent, even though we cannot follow precisely the pattern of decolonisation in countries which faced easier problems. The formula of independence "by 1968" was not defined when it was enunciated. There are reasons for and against any particular date in 1968, but, in our view, events impose their own logic. When one decides to go, it is well to go as fast as safety allows. I repeat, there are particular reasons for this in South Arabia, where the local Governments are attacked less for themselves than for their association with us. And Arab problems must, in the end, be solved by Arabs.
The transformation of the Federal forces and the additional strengthening which I have described will be adequate to the needs of the territory, by the end of this year. We have, therefore, informed the Federal Government that we consider that the independence of South Arabia should come about on 9th January, 1968—this is, the earliest practical date after 1st January because of the Moslem period of Ramadhan and the religious events which follow it.
The consequences of independence seem to be these. In January, we shall reach the following position. British sovereignty in the colonial territories of South Arabia will have come to an end. At the same time, the Royal Prerogative, which Her Majesty has graciously put at the disposal of Parliament, will be exercised to terminate our relationships with the Protectorate. All the associated processes which are necessary to establish the independence of a country will also take place.
South Arabia, united we hope, but at all events with some association between the Eastern and Western areas, and with Aden as its capital territory with enhanced status, will become entirely free to decide her own future. She will, I have no doubt, speedily apply for membership of the United Nations.
Her Majesty's Government will have no treaty relationship with the new State, but there will be available to it the extensive assistance which we have offered to give in the first few years of independence, including the powerful military and economic support which I have outlined. It will thereafter be very much more difficult for States of the Middle East to foment trouble for South Arabia in disregard of the rights of all peoples to live


at peace in the way of their own choosing.
It will be apparent from what I have said that Her Majesty's Government have thought long, hard and flexibly about the problem of South Arabia. Hon. Members opposite will concede that I have not been inhibited from thinking about what they have said to me as well as what other people have said to me. I have taken them into account. There is no point in giggling at me because I have done so. The whole point of a democratic assembly is that I should do so.
Our policy in South Arabia as now established has two objectives, which can be summarised in one sentence. We intend to withdraw our military forces in an orderly way and to establish an independent South Arabia in January, 1968. The two elements of our policy are completely interdependent. Given the situation in the Middle East, independence must mean independence without our troops remaining there. We have to deal realistically with the situation as it exists today in the Middle East. In my view, there can be no comparison with Malaysia or other places.
To achieve these objectives, we have approached the problem in its many and related aspects. The Federal Government are providing in the new Constitution for the creation of a broader-based Government and evolution towards a democratic society. This will proceed, and we hope that the United Nations will be able to help in the process.
In our efforts to establish a strong and representative Government, we shall continue to make every reasonable effort to talk with all those inside and outside South Arabia who wish to co-operate in providing for the future of their own country.
An essential step towards this is a further effort to restore the rule of law; and I have oulined some of the measures, both by way of conciliation and firmness, which we would propose to take. I hope that this will, not least, hearten the British civil and business community who have done so much in the most difficult circumstances for the administration and economy of South Arabia, and many of whom expect to stay on after independence.
At the same time, we have decided greatly to increase the very considerable support which we have already promised to the South Arabian Government to enable them to defend their independence by additions to the strength of the South Arabian Armed Forces and by the provision of a powerful deterrent against external aggression for as long as we judge necessary for South Arabia to establish itself as a free and independent nation.
I hope, therefore, that later tonight the House will give the Aden Bill an unopposed Second Reading. I hope, too, that it will forgive me for speaking so long, but it was a statement for which the House has pressed me for a long time. It is one to which a lot of attention has had to be given. I hope that the House will understand if I am not present at the end of the debate.
Whatever detailed criticisms the House may have, I hope that it will agree that the package of measures I have announced today demonstrates the determination of Her Majesty's Government to make every effort to bring our objectives about.
In the last resort the success and stability of independence will depend on the people of Arabia themselves, and we are determined to help them in that task.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: I can assure the Foreign Secretary that the House has listened with the greatest interest to his long-awaited statement. It has proved to be of the utmost importance. It shows radical changes in policy by the Government which, in themselves, we believe to be necessary and which are, therefore, for that reason to be welcomed.
I would like to say to the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I are grateful to him for making us aware of the substance of his proposals this morning so that we could at least give some consideration to them. I assure him that he need not apologise for the length of his speech. I would only put on record my regret that his statement, important as it has proved to be, was not published in advance of the debate, or, better still, published as a White Paper. I believe that any statement containing so many


new, important and necessary measures could well have been published in advance with advantage to the whole House.
The Foreign Secretary has looked at the past and drawn lessons from it, and I should like to do the same for a short time. First of all, what are the reasons for the tragic catalogue of events which we have seen in Aden over the past few months? I think that the House will recognise that the plain fact is that, until the Foreign Secretary's statement this afternoon, and for well over a year, the Government have had no policy for dealing with the situation of Men other than to get out, and to get out at any cost.
The consequences of that approach, which stems from the original declaration of the Government, have become clearer every day. The first was the decision of President Nasser not to carry out his agreement on the Yemen with King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. It may be that he never intended to carry out that agreement. We cannot know. But the Government's announcement that they would grant independence to Aden in 1968 without a defence agreement—in fact, just to pull out—gave President Nasser every incentive to stay in the Yemen and step up terrorism in Aden.
As this is a general debate on the Adjournment, perhaps I might say that I find the attitude of the Government on the use of poison gas in the Yemen an extraordinary one, in that they have failed to take any initiative in the United Nations. In particular, the Foreign Secretary's answer to me last week, in which he said:
I did not take the view that in this situation it was for us to take the initiative on that… I thought that it was better for us to concentrate on the main issue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th June, 1967; Vol.747, c. 1296.]
is not one which I find justifiable.
I do not believe that in days past the Labour Party would ever have sat still and silent in the fact of the use of poison gas by any Power in the world. Therefore, I make a fresh appeal to the Foreign Secretary, going on to the United Nations as he is, that he should consider afresh the possibility of a resolution, instigated by the British Government, to deal with poison gas—

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: rose—

Mr. Heath: I am sorry. I cannot give way. I have too much to say. I cannot believe that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) questions the rightness of anything that I have said. Surely he would support a resolution in the Security Council about poison gas.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I am obliged to the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. I agree that I would support a resolution on the use of poison gas. In fact, I have put my name to a Motion on the Order Paper. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also agree that if poison gas is to be considered, the defoliation gases and the crop killing gases which so vitally affect the life of South Vietnam should be considered.

Mr. Heath: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is completely aware that the use of defoliation gases is a separate issue from the use of poison gas against a civilian population by military forces—

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: rose—

Mr. Heath: I cannot give way to the right hon. Gentleman again.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) is not giving way. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) must not persist.

Mr. Heath: The second effect of the general announcement about withdrawal from Aden has been that lawlessness, terrorism, disorder, wounding and murder have increased substantially. The Foreign Secretary did not really emphasise—and I make no complaint about it, in view of the time at his disposal—the extent to which they have grown since the Government's policy was announced.
The figures are most striking. In 1964, there were 64 incidents in Aden State. In 1965, there were 279. In 1966, there were 480. In the first two months of this year alone, there have been 265 incidents, in which 44 people were killed and 239 injured. That represents a tremendous


increase in terrorism, murder, assassination and wounding as a result, I believe, of the declaration of the Government about our withdrawal.
I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary say—and I agree with him—that the measures which he has announced will hearten the British civil and military administration there. I am sure that in that he includes the British business personnel who have been carrying on and looking after British interests under very great difficulties.
The third effect is that the confidence of other countries for whom we have responsibilities in the area has been gravely undermined. In the Middle East debate, the Foreign Secretary said that the Persian Gulf is a clear example where our contribution has been crucial and successful. It has been crucial and successful because we have treaty commitments to the Trucial States, and we have forces to carry them out. The same applies to Kuwait, Bahrein and Qatar. This has been undermined by the Government's decision to withdraw in this fashion originally from Aden.
Fourthly, I believe that the announcement gave President Nasser confidence that he could get away with almost anything, and, fifthly, it led other countries in the Middle East outside those for whom we have direct responsibilities, but including some of our friends, to switch their policies and fall in line with President Nasser's. As a result, some of our friends, and Jordan, in particular, have suffered grievously. These last two results were themselves contributing factors to the situation which we have seen recently in the Middle East and with which the United Nations is now dealing.
I am sure that the House sincerely wishes the Foreign Secretary success in his forthcoming mission tonight to the United Nations in trying to solve some of these problems. However, I have no doubt that, if a glimmer of success appears on the horizon, he will quickly find the Prime Minister landing at Kennedy Airport. But that, after all, tends to be the fate of the Foreign Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of all Foreign Seretaries."] I was not distinguishing.
Very often, over these past months, I have tried to think what were the reasons

behind the Government's decision on their original announcement about withdrawal. The Foreign Secretary has touched on some of them today. First, there was the determination to cut defence expenditure in accordance with a prearranged Budget figure and without consideration of commitments. I believe that that was a crucial factor. That attempt to save money quickly has proved disappointing and has cost a great deal not only in cash but also in lives.
Second, I suspected sometimes that, at the back of the mind of the Government, was the belief that a shock announcement such as that made on the Indian sub-continent by the Labour Government immediately after the war would make everyone work together and solve the problems. That consideration has proved to be ill-based and a fallacious doctrine—a complete misjudgment.
Third, there was the attempt by withdrawal from Aden completely to create the atmosphere and a basis for a fresh agreement with the President of the U.A.R. I think that that, also, has proved to be a complete misjudgment, for the reason which I gave in the Middle East debate, that President Nasser comes to agreements and keeps to them only when he sees that people are determined to protect their own interests.
Fourth, there was the belief that the defence of the Federation against outside aggression and internal stranglehold could be left to the United Nations after withdrawal. I believe that that was another element in the situation. Recent events have shown that there can be very little validity now in that judgment. If it was an attempt to shuffle off responsibility, it has proved mistaken. The conclusion is clear. The Government's original policy and the way in which they have attempted to handle the situation has proved to be a disastrous failure in every respect.
The rest of the world has recognised this, but until this afternoon the Government have failed to do so. They have refused to let the Federal Government deal with internal security, but they have failed to deal effectively with terrorism themselves. They have insisted on early independence, but until this afternoon they have taken no steps to deal with the outstanding constitutional issues. They


have had the Hone-Bell Report for 18 months and have taken no action on it.
The Government have brought in the United Nations, but, as the Foreign Secretary frankly admitted, this organisation has not been able so far to help towards a solution of the problem. I believe that this was natural, because the people from outside who were inciting terrorism did not want a United Nations' solution. They wanted a take-over in Aden itself, and, therefore, I do not believe that the United Nations, put into this situation, can he blamed for failing to solve the problem.
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that as soon as the Federation is independent it will want to become a member of the United Nations, as did Kuwait when she achieved independence. This being so, it is right that the United Nations should be given every facility possible in the circumstances in Aden. I hope that the organisation will be able to make full use of these and use them wisely, but I do not think it right or fair to the United Nations for the Government to attempt to shuffle off on to it a responsibility which it is not in a position to accept.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would be a little more specific? He says that we should not shuffle responsibility on to the United Nations. He has condemned the Mission in rather contemptuous terms, yet he says that it should have facilities in the area. What does he mean by that?

Mr. Heath: I did not deprecate the action of the United Nations. I said that it should not be blamed for any failure to bring about a solution, because it is not in a position to bring it about. I say that because terrorism in Aden is coming from organisations deliberately sponsored from outside by members of the United Nations. They are doing this because they do not want a United Nations' solution, but a take-over. The United Nations cannot, therefore, solve this problem.
I want the United Nations to have all the facilities the British Government can give to help to bring about a broader basis of government, if it can help in that way, and by having discussions with those involved, but I do not believe that it should be told, "It is your responsibility to find a solution". This responsibility must rest with the British Government.
The Foreign Secretary has criticised us from time to time, as he tended to do this afternoon, for the present state of affairs, but what is the basis for this criticism? It cannot be for the creation of the Federation itself, which the member States wanted. The Foreign Secretary is not proposing that it should be dissolved or broken up, not does the Federation want it to be. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing that it should be extended. It cannot be for agreeing that Aden should become part of the Federation, because the right hon. Gentleman has said publicly that there is no part of Aden or of the Federation which wants them to be separate. It cannot be for agreeing to independence, though the right hon. Gentleman tended to hint that we agreed to independence too early.
This is the first time that I have heard anybody from those benches, in power or in opposition, criticise us for giving independence too early. The right hon. Gentleman is also committed to independence, and I fail to see the basis on which he is criticising us.
We, too, are committed to independence for Aden, and for this reason we will give the Aden Bill an unopposed Second reading as the right hon. Gentleman asked. In Committee, my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to raise points of detail particularly about Perim. The right hon. Gentleman knows, but I want to make it quite clear, that there must be no misunderstanding anywhere in the Middle East that both sides of the House are in favour of the independence of the new Federation. Whatever criticisms—and they are substantial—we may make of the Government's past policy, we support the Bill tonight.
We committed ourselves to independence with a defence agreement, and we must be quite clear about this. I was a member of the Cabinet which did it, and it was a clear commitment, the details of which were to be negotiated later in the usual way. The Foreign Secretary has sometimes suggested that there was no commitment of a defence agreement, or he has sometimes suggested that words meant something else, or he has said there was not one because the details had not been negotiated—that was his line in one speech—or because the Federal Government were told one thing


and Parliament another—without ever producing any evidence of this—or there was not a defence agreement because his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence did not know about it when he agreed to the withdrawal—

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): Nonsense.

Mr. Heath: The Secretary of State for Defence gave an assurance to the Federal Government that we would not withdraw—

Mr. Healey: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is usually careful, but I assure him that what he has said is totally untrue, and I hope that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say publicly that that is untrue, of course I withdraw it.

Mr. Healey: I have said it.

Mr. Heath: Then I withdraw it, but the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of the information which I have, just as he has.

Mr. Healey: I think that we might be better off if sometimes the right hon. Gentleman were to reveal the information he has, and the sources from which he has obtained it.

Mr. Heath: I can make it available to the right hon. Gentleman.
Those are reasons why the Foreign Secretary has said there has been no defence agreement. I believe that that is unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman, because there was a very clear commitment about this, and we stand by it. This has always been our position. But, even if there had not been a defence agreement, I believe that at the time of discussing independence the Government ought to have asked themselves whether the Federation could he viable. Had they done so, they must have come to the conclusion that there was a need for a defence agreement, and in fact now, belatedly, after a loss of life, they have come to that conclusion in substance without formality. This is what the Foreign Secretary's statement this afternoon means, and I welcome it.
I propose now to deal with the specific changes of policy which the right hon.

Gentleman has proposed. I would like to make two general points before coming to the specific items. The right hon. Gentleman asked that this should be considered as a package deal, and I do so. My first general point is about the future of the Federation in the light of recent events in the Middle East. There are some who have expressed the view that with the defeat of the army and air force of the U.A.R. there is no longer any threat to the Federation. The Foreign Secretary has not accepted that view. I agree with him, and I am glad that he has not done so.
Secondly, there are those who argue that because the Government took no action in the Middle East during the recent crisis, Britain is incapable of taking action there, or ought to become incapable of acting there. The Foreign Secretary has rejected this view, too. I agree with him, and I am glad that he has done so.
I come now to the specific proposals. We welcome the proposal for constitutional advance on the basis of the Hone-Bell Report. I am glad that this can come into effect before independence. My right hon. Friend raised the question of internal security before independence, and I would like to say a word about this in a moment or two.
I welcome the additional support which the Government are prepared to give the Eastern States. One of the main reasons why they have not joined the Federation, or been prepared to join it, is their doubt about joining a Federation without a defence agreement. They are in doubt about the viability of the Federation. The support for two years of the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion and the other defence arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman has announced will go some way to removing these doubts and fears. I therefore hope that the Eastern States will decide to join the Federation, if not before independence, then during the two-year period following it.
We welcome the measures which the Government are taking, however belatedly, for internal security, and for more effective action against terrorism. The right hon. Gentleman is right. He is proposing serious steps, but this is a very serious situation. I am certain that the Government and their legal advisers


will watch carefully the legal aspects of this matter, but in the circumstances I believe that the measures, however regrettable, are justified.
The Foreign Secretary has recognised, again rather belatedly, the anomaly of one terrorist organisation being proscribed, and not the other. He has now removed the proscription of the N.L.F. So long as the measures against terrorists are pursued with resolution, I believe that this step is acceptable, but if it is found that these organisations go on supporting violence and gain support in Aden because it is thought that the Government are acquiescing in violence by not proscribing them, he will have to consider the matter again. It is to be hoped that these organisations will abandon terrorism and join in a more broadly-based caretaker Government. If they do not the caretaker Government must be prepared to go ahead without them.
The cautious approach of the Foreign Secretary on the subject of detainees is correct, but I want to put to him a different point of view on the subject of internal security. I hope that in his consideration of the question he has not excluded from his mind the possibility of making the caretaker Government responsible for internal security in Aden as well as outside it after the constitutional changes have taken place.
The Federal Government should be given a period during which they can gain more experience of internal security over the whole area before they take over. This has happened elsewhere in constitutional changes and it would be conducive to more stable Government later. I hope that in the consideration that he is giving to the subject he will come to the conclusion that this change should be made.
This brings me to the vital question of the external defence of the Federation. Here, the Government have moved a long way from their original declaration. It is right to say so, and to pay tribute to them for doing it. The Government will provide additional money, assistance and equipment for the Army and Air Force, for the Federation and for the forces in the Eastern Aden Protectorate; they will pay for the South Arabian Army to reequip with more modern small arms, additional armoured cars and artillery;

the Government will help with communications, basic maintenance and medical staff. In comparison with what they previously proposed this is considerable. For the Air Force there are to be eight Hunters in addition to the jet Provosts.
The question how they are to be manned must be in the mind of the Secretary of State for Defence. The question is when they will become available to the Federation. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be before independence?

Mr. George Brown: By the time of independence.

Mr. Heath: In addition, there is to be a military mission to advise and help the Federal Government. This is going a considerable way towards what the Opposition and some hon. Members opposite have been asking for. The Government have recognised the size and type of threat from outside and are determined that the Federation should stand on its own feet and be able to meet that threat.
There is also a major reassurance from the Government—a strong naval force in South Arabian waters for the first six months after independence, including a carrier of the attack force. No one on this side of the House was laughing at the right hon. Gentleman. There was merely a smile that, once again, the carrier has proved to be essential, and that it is likely to remain so.
There is to be a force of V-bombers at Masirah for so long as the British Government consider it necessary. I cannot believe that they would make a unilateral decision without discussing the question of withdrawal with the new Federal Government. It is, therefore, a binding undertaking for the defence of the Federation that the V-bomber force should be at Masirah and be able to act. It is a powerful deterrent.
The question arises whether the changes which the Government have made, in the form in which they are made, are sufficient to secure the Government's objective that there should be a free and independent federation of South Arabia. This is the key question which must be posed—

Mr. R. T. Paget: The right hon. Gentleman says that the V-bombers are a deterrent—a deterrent


to what? Are they going to threaten to bomb Cairo, or to intervene in a mountain border incident?

Mr. Heath: They could not be used as a defence against internal subversion, but they could be used against any attack of any size likely to threaten Aden from the outside. They can use orthodox as well as nuclear weapons, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows.
I want to put one question to the Foreign Secretary He announced that the date of independence would be 9th January but he did not announce any date for the withdrawal of British forces at present in Aden. I do not know whether this was an oversight, or whether we should draw the conclusion that the forces are not to be withdrawn completely by the same date—9th January—but will continue in the base for a period afterwards, and that a phased withdrawal will take place.

Mr. George Brown: I do not want to mislead the right hon. Gentleman. The British forces will come out between now and then. Within a week or so they will all be out by 9th January.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will this withdrawal be irrespective of the withdrawal of Nasser's troops from the Yemen.

Mr. George Brown: indicated assent.

Mr. Heath: The question is whether the forces should be kept in the base. The Federal Government originally wanted the base kept in the Federation, but since the Government's declaration they have accepted the United Nations resolution and, as I understand, do not wish to have a British base in the Federation but wish to have a defence agreement in form as well as substance, and to be assured that forces can be brought in to deal with any aggression from outside.
The question is whether the V-bombers and the naval forces are sufficient. It seems to me that the further guarantee which the Foreign Secretary has given and the presence of a British military mission in the Federation can ensure that both the British Government and the Federal Government are speedily advised about any threat to Aden or the Federation from without or from the locality.

The military mission can advise both Governments on what action can be taken. This situation is similar to that in respect of which the agreement was concluded with Kuwait. Although there was no military mission it was possible for the British Government to bring forces in very speedily to deal with any threat, because we were advised beforehand by the Government of Kuwait exactly what the threat was.
I therefore conclude that the standing force of a carrier plus the V-bombers would have to be implemented with other forces if the threat arose. The British military mission would be able to advise both Governments of any need which may arise, and this gives a further safeguard to the independence and safety of the Federation.
What does all this amount to? It is an admission by Her Majesty's Government that a defence undertaking by Britain to the new Federation is necessary and has to be provided. That is what the Foreign Secretary's statement amounts to. It is necessary until the Federation can properly defend itself and until threats from the U.A.R. in the Yemen are removed by the complete withdrawal of the U.A.R. forces from the Yemen.
I would have preferred these arrangements to be put in the same form as in the defence agreement which I negotiated on the independence of Kuwait in 1961. The Foreign Secretary said that there is no comparison here with the situation in the Federation of Malaysia or anywhere else. I do not accept that. I believe there is a comparison, and in the Middle East—in the agreement negotiated with Kuwait. This has worked effectively. It enabled Kuwait to be accepted as independent by every other Arab State and to gain immediate membership of the United Nations. There has never been any criticism of it, on any ground. I would have preferred the agreement which the Foreign Secretary has now made to have been in that form.

Mr. Healey: I have been trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman carefully. When his party was in power it was in favour of maintaining a substantial base in Aden. Do the Opposition now agree that the base there should be removed?

Mr. Heath: That is a much wider question of defence policy. I am dealing with the question of the defence of the Federation. We can deal with the defence of the Federation if effective provision is made outside it. But it involves obligations by the Government and their recognition of the necessary stationing of forces, and so on, while it is going on. The Government now propose to do it for a limited time with the naval forces and for an unlimited time with the Air Force, and so have moved a long way towards the Kuwait situation.
I would say to the Foreign Secretary, let there be no mistake about the vital importance of the firm and categorical pledges which he gave this afternoon to maintain the independence of the Federation. It is because the Government have given these pledges and are, therefore, committed to providing the forces to carry them out, that I welcome the package proposals which the right hon. Gentleman put forward and would advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to vote against them.
They go a long way to provide the required defence, but the Foreign Secretary's categorical pledges mean that, if it is found that they are in some way lacking in implementation, it is the British Government's responsibility to see that that deficiency is made good.

Mr. George Brown: Mr. George Brown indicated assent.

Mr. Heath: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that.
We have now seen two damaging attempts by the Government to save money by inept policies and incompetent diplomacy—Malta, which cost us much good will and respect in the Mediterranean and afterwards cost the Government more money; and Aden, which has cost us much in lives and money and for which additional sums must now be found and defence arrangements must be made.
The Government must learn the lessons of these two places in their dealings with the Far East, but already there are far too many indications that the Government have learned nothing from the disastrous policies which they have been following—the way in which they have negotiated or attempted to impose them.
I say to the Government that, in dealing with the problems of the Far East, they must learn the lessons which have been taught so bitterly in Malta and especially in Aden and the Federation. It is very hard to forgive the Government's mistakes in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, but they will certainly not be forgiven if they go on now to commit the same appalling blunders in the handling of our problems in the Far East as well.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The Leader of the Opposition thanked the Government for letting him have a copy of the Foreign Secretary's speech beforehand, and I am grateful to him for suggesting that the same privilege should have been given to all hon. Members. Indeed, I might say that my need for it was greater than his, because to the Leader of the Opposition my right hon. Friend's speech must have looked extremely familiar. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman needed to read a speech which he appeared to have written as well.
I could not help reflecting, throughout my right hon. Friend's speech, that it amounted in effect to an unconditional surrender to the Conservative Opposition. Point after point which he made, mistakenly I believe, had been put to the Government by the Opposition in these last months on the subject of Aden.
From exactly the contrary point of view to that of the Leader of the Opposition, I want to ask why the Government's Aden policy has undoubtedly failed so far, as it plainly has. Lives have been lost, great bitterness and disunity have been caused, and there have been insecurity and heavy economic damage. Yet it would be a brave man who said that the policy outlined by the Government today stands a much better chance of success than that which they have tried so far.
The essence of my right hon. Friend's speech was that he had despaired of reaching an agreed solution with the forces of Arab nationalism in South Arabia. That is a fair summary. Before that, he had attempted such an agreement. He had invited F.L.O.S.Y. and N.L.F. to take their responsibilities in reaching a settlement and had written letters to President Nasser inviting his co-operation. Today,


the meaning of my right hon. Friend's speech was that he has decided that agreement is not possible and that he will face a head-on clash with Arab nationalism on a settlement of his own choosing.
One of the great dangers of my right hon. Friend's new attitude was excellently pointed out by himself at the beginnning of his speech. He began admirably with an analysis of the grave dangers to the Federal Government themselves of the British Government's appearing as their protector, and of our maintaining our intimate control of affairs in South Arabia, of creating the impression that the Federal régime were puppets, thus creating political conditions in which they would be doomed to failure.
As he spoke, I thought, "I am glad that he is reaching this conclusion and is now analysing it so clearly and well." But what did the rest of his speech contain? One measure after another by which we committed ourselves deeper and deeper, economically, militarily and administratively in South Arabia, in Aden. Hon. Members opposite cheered that part, and from their point of view were right, but it is totally inconsistent with that part of the statement of the Foreign Secretary in which he said that we are decolonising, that we are according the Federal Government independence, because we are afraid that, by staying, we may undermine their political position. In effect, the measures which he outlined could have been taken from a textbook on neo-colonialism, on how to create puppet Governments, how to play into the hands of nationalists opposing a puppet Government.
This is sowing the seeds of the kind of conflict we have seen in the world so often recently. Which of us on this side did not think, as my right hon. Friend was speaking, of the nasty parallels with the situation in Vietnam? After all, there too is a Government which is being given the same kind of support by a great Power, the same military, economic and administrative support, the same military mission. After all the denials that the Government is a puppet Government and all the assertions that all that the Americans are trying to do is maintain its independence, what is the net result of that policy? It is undermining the Govern-

ment, playing into the hands of that Government's enemies. And now the same mistake is being made again. No lessons have been learned from contemporary history.
I admit that, if we are to maintain this kind of Aden rôle, the Government have chosen, in aircraft carriers, the right weapons system to do it. There is no doubt about that. And what a scandal it is that, when the Government are now going back into their east of Suez rôle and going back into the Middle East, and, perhaps—if they follow the Leader of the Opposition's advice—back into the Far East, they should at the some time phase out the one weapons system which all experience shows can do the job.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman made some good points about the technical performance of carriers as the best weapons system for this job; but there are carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin, and what do they do? They do a fine job for the purpose for which they are built, but they are not built against infiltration or subversion, and, of course, it is the infiltration from Yemen into Aden and the subversion in Aden which is the defence problem, not the twelve MIGs which the Egyptians had in Yemen. I should be surprised if they still have them. The problem is the infiltration of what are called the forces of liberation from Yemen over the hills into Aden and the carrier is not the weapons system for that job.
I had come prepared to say that the Opposition policy on Aden was worse, but now it appears that it is almost identical with the Government's. It suffers from the same dinosaur thinking, the same total inability to learn from experience. Their past policy failed, just as the Government's past policy failed, and the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) sowed the seeds of many of the difficulties we are now facing in Aden. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have nothing to teach us in this crisis.
I return to the important question: why did the Government's previous policy of trying to reach a compromise solution fail? Their intentions were good. They meant to leave in peace, leaving behind a representative, broad-based Government. They invited co-operation from F.L.O.S.Y. and the N.L.F. and they wrote to President Nasser. Nevertheless, their policy failed. Why?
Hon. Members who recently visited with me a number of Arab leaders will recall that we impressed on them the sincerity of the Government's intention to leave Aden without leaving behind a puppet Government. No hon. Member will disagree that a policy based on agreement between the various elements in Aden would have been better than the policy which has been outlined today. Why did it fail?
The answer is that there is no solution to the Aden problem which is compatible with the Government's policies in other parts of the Middle East. The Government treat Aden in isolation; as just one more problem of giving freedom to a Colony, as though this were happening in Africa or Asia. They do not understand that their actions in Aden are weighed and judged by the Arab world in the light of their actions in other parts of the Middle East.
Thus, while Her Majesty's Government are trying to convince the nationalists in Aden that they intend to leave and intend to leave behind a representative, broad-based Government and that they are abandoning their old imperialist policies, they are actually building up their special military and political position in the Gulf. The Government have never shown an awareness of the fact that these two things are connected.
Anybody who speaks to the nationalists in Aden knows that their belief that we are simply leaving behind a puppet Government—and that we shall re-enter from Bahrein, if necessary, and reinforce the puppet régime—has been one of the difficulties in reaching agreement and getting talks with them. This difficulty has been largely based on their seeing that the Government are not abandoning their old Middle East policy and colonial rôle but are building up their special position in the Gulf and are even saying publicly, "This is an alternative to Aden". The Government have failed to see this and are tending to treat the whole matter in isolation.
I will not today go into the folly of building up our position in the Gulf. I could not believe my ears when I heard the Leader of the Opposition casually refer to the "success" of our military presence in the Persian Gulf. I will have

to study the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow to make sure that I heard him correctly, that I heard him referring to this military presence which protects our oil and prevents it from being cut off. The Ministry of Defence has a terrible problem now in discovering how to protect the oil supplies to our ships and aircraft which are protecting our oil supplies.
What about stability? Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that our presence in the Gulf has increased stability in the last two or three weeks? Has it won us any friends and influenced people, or has it increased hostility towards us? There is no question but that the decision of the Government a year ago to build up our military and political rôle in the Gulf was one of the greatest acts of folly committed by the Government.

Mr. Heath: I was quoting the Foreign Secretary, who said that in the Trucial States our position has been crucial and successful, and it certainly has been. Surely the defence of Kuwait against Iraq was a successful operation. As for stability in the Middle East, the hon. Gentleman is judging events on the past fortnight. If he looks at the previous period—at Bahrein and so on—he will agree that there has been stability and that, when these problems have been settled, there will be stability again.

Mr. Mayhew: If the right hon. Gentleman was quoting the Foreign Secretary, I apologise. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between some of the remarks that both right hon. Members make.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey (Macclesfield): The hon. Gentleman is criticising what has been done for British oil in the last two or three weeks. Would he care to say what he has done for British oil in that period?

Mr. Mayhew: Out of 122 members of the United Nations, 119 have not had their oil cut off by the Arab world. By a strange coincidence, none of those 119 members has any military presence in the Persian Gulf. These facts of life should be learnt by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I hope that an opportunity will be provided to discuss the subject of the Persian Gulf in detail on another occasion, perhaps when the new defence policy is outlined at the end of next month. My point now is that one cannot isolate what


we do in the Gulf from the situation in Aden; and the Government have been seriously at fault in not understanding that the Arabs connect the two, even if Her Majesty's Government do not.
It is interesting and strange to look back on the grounds on which the Government decided to leave Aden first, and then to stay in the Gulf. If one is to withdraw from the Middle East, what possible political, military or economic reasons can there be for picking on Aden and not on the Gulf? The Gulf is extremely expensive to stay in. It is also easier to leave—and as one leaves the Gulf one makes it rather easier to leave Aden. By leaving the Gulf one, so to speak, diminishes the suspicions and antagonisms of Arab nationalists in Aden. For every reason, the proper thing was to have a phased disengagement from the Middle East as a whole and not to quickly scuttle out of Aden while staying in the Gulf. I have all along considered that 1968 was very soon to leave. My view a year ago—and it remains the same today—is that there should be a phased disengagement from the Middle East as a whole—from Aden and the Gulf—but probably from the Gulf first and from both within three or four years.
Naturally, by scuttling out of Aden, the Government unsettled their friends in the Gulf. Nobody could be more bitter against the Government—even more bitter than President Nasser—than King Faisal, since King Faisal says that we are letting our friends down in the Gulf. The second major contradiction in the Government's Middle East policy is that although bidding for co-operation from President Nasser, we are giving King Faisal £120 million worth of arms, we go on to invite him to London and say that we stand by the treaties to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. We send begging letters to President Nasser while sending arms to his enemy, King Faisal.
That is not a sensible policy. While asking President Nasser for his cooperation and while writing to him—as well as asking F.L.O.S.Y. and the N.L.F. to take part in arriving at a compromise settlement—Her Majesty's Government were going out of their way to give favoured treatment to the enemies of the nationalist Arabs, the traditionalists in the Gulf and King Faisal.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: Would my hon. Friend rather have seen arms supplied by the United States to Saudi Arabia, instead of our supplying them and helping our balance of payments?

Mr. Mayhew: I would rather we reached a compromise solution in Aden. I remind my hon. Friend that one cannot run with the fox and hunt with the hounds at the same time.
There is a third contradiction which shows the obvious mistake the Government have made. So far they had only made things difficult for themselves. It might still have been possible to have reached agreement with the nationalists. On two occasions recently I have been round the Arab world with other hon. Members. They will bear me out when I say that, in spite of the difficulties, it still looked possible that a compromise agreement might have been arrived at in Aden.
But then the Aqaba crisis arose. It showed that Her Majesty's Government not only favour the traditionalist Arabs against the nationalist Arabs, but that they favour Israel against the Arabs as a whole. This is the third absurdity in the Government's attempts to reach a compromise solution in Aden.
The Israeli case on Aqaba was extremely powerful, but it was not a black-and-white case. There were some arguments on the other side. I do not believe that the Government even considered the arguments. If they did, they just swept them aside. They refused to take the matter to international arbitration, to the International Court, but simply declared that they would assert British rights in the Gulf of Tiran, not ruling out the use of force outside the United Nations. Of course, as soon as the fighting started they hastily backed down. The plans to clear Aqaba were hastily dropped as soon as the war began. We discovered that we had been neutral all the time. But this neutrality was a myth.
Turning over some old papers the other day, I was reminded that three years ago the Israeli Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary made representations to Labour leaders against what they called "Mr. Mayhew's attitude of nonalignment or positive neutralism on the


Arab-Israeli dispute." The Israeli leaders were quickly reassured that my neutral attitude did not represent party policy, and Labour leaders continued the old easy assurances of mutual sympathy and support—until the crunch came.
When the first shot was fired they ran like rabbits, precisely as I had predicted to the Israeli leaders three years ago. They found that Britain was too weak economically, politically and militarily for them to fulfil the responsibilities they had accepted of military intervention on the side of Israel. Today we hear the Leader of the Opposition say that we must accept more responsibilities in Aden, that we are wrong to go from Malta. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that in the Far East he too will come to the same fate when the crunch comes. He too will find that he has accepted responsibilities and lacks the real power to carry them out. The Foreign Secretary's declaration of neutrality on that occasion was correct but it was done in the most humiliating and contemptible circumstances. Declining to accept responsibility is undoubtedly unheroic, but accepting responsibility and then, when the crisis comes, running away—that is treachery.
The Government's hope now seems to be that by letting down the Israelis they may have won some trust with the Arabs. I do not believe that at all. I do not believe that this new-found neutrality will convince the Arab world of the sincerity of the British Government, and I certainly think that the Foreign Secretary's speech this afternoon will mar any attempt he makes at the United Nations to project himself as an equal friend of Israel and of the Arab nationalist movement. The fact is that Aqaba has made the Aden situation far more difficult—together with our presence in the Gulf, and our special favouring of the traditional Arabs m the Gulf. The war may have made the Egyptians in the Yemen weaker, but the political position of the nationalist Arabs against the British is stronger.
What can the Government do to retrieve their mistakes? First, they must now deal with the Middle East as a single problem, announce a new overall policy for the Middle East and begin a phased disengagement from both Aden and the Gulf. Secondly, they must now pursue a policy of genuine neutrality between the Arabs

and the Israelis, with a proper recognition that the Arabs have a case as well as the Israelis. Third, they must recognise, however it may be regretted, that the days when Britain could play a Great Power rôle in the Middle East are gone for good. The Government's Middle Eastern policy, which was always full of pretentions and contradictions, has now been blown to pieces.
As to Aden, it was madness to try to withdraw in one part of the Middle East whilst trying to build up in another part of the Middle East. It was madness to send begging letters to Nasser while sending arms to his enemy King Faisal. It was madness to bid for the co-operation of Arab nationalists in Aden and then to side with Israel at Aqaba. Aden and Aqaba are two examples of the general ineptitude of the Government's defence policy. They are examples of their worst failing—of accepting commitments and responsibility without the real power and will to fulfil them effectively.
The folly of this paper peace-keeping has been shown over and over again. "Paper peace-keepers" is a fair description of Ministers who attempt to maintain the Prime Minister's world rôle on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's defence budget. As a result, we see all over the world—in Hong Kong, in the Gulf, in Aden, Shanghai and Rhodesia—British interests trampled on and British citizens insulted. We saw reports of incidents in Shanghai in the newspapers this morning.
The time has come for a radical change in the Government's defence policies east of Suez. It is time the Government took some notice of decisions of their own party in this respect. It is time that the present policies, which have been disastrous and have led to humiliating failure, are changed. They have lost the confidence of a large section of the public and of many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) for making the first speech for the Opposition during this debate. I confess that I find myself agreeing with much more of what he said than I would


have thought possible in views of the events of the last fortnight. I would first add my thanks to those already given to the Foreign Secretary for his courtesy in making available some of the matters he intended to mention in this debate to quarters representative of this House; and likewise to wish him success at the United Nations. I hope that he has not been too much embarrassed by the volume of Conservative support his speech received.
The Foreign Secretary expressed the hope that nothing would be said that would make the negotiations in New York more difficult so, like Agag, I shall mince delicately. But I must confess that I felt slightly sick in my stomach when I heard the Leader of the Opposition castigate the Government for their neutrality on what he regards as a great moral issue, namely the use of poison gas in the Yemen, which I too, deplore as much as he, especially when some of us remember a few weeks ago that when many of us interpreted a threat of genocide against Israel he rushed to declare his complete neutrality, and hastened to join the Government in tearing up the Tripartite Declaration. Only when Egypt is defeated does the Opposition adopt a great moral stance and put back their Middle Eastern false teeth in order to bite. I thought, though I must check this later, that the right hon. Gentleman even suggested that some of the events in regard to Egypt and the other Arab States were caused by the instability in the area brought about by this Government. I would only say that I do not think that that is a view which will be generally accepted in the country. When there is plenty of live ammunition to fire at this Government, it is better not to use soft-nosed bullets.
In discussing this subject we are dealing with one of the last two great imperial commitments of this country—one is Aden and the other is Hong Kong. Whatever decision Her Majesty's Government take about Aden and the South Arabian Federation there are great risks We must accept that that follows any suggested solution. It should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the flexibility of their approach in this matter—and I do not use that word in an opprobious sense—in having stuck

to the principle of independence, of having recognised that some form of external assistance is necessary, which cannot be open-ended, although whether in the absence of a treaty the Federal Government still themselves regard that as of sufficient value is a matter for them, and for them alone.
My main criticism of the Government's package deal is that they have failed to assess the reason why there are political difficulties in Aden and South Arabia today. The reason for it is that we attempted a shot-gun marriage. We built a federation on Sandys—spelt with a "Y"—and are in very grave danger that all the Foreign Secretary is doing is removing the "Y" and the "S" and building one on sand.
We have in the Federation an area which was a Crown Colony in 1935, which had elections in 1955, which has had universal suffrage from 1959 and we are basing the whole future in getting together a caretaker Administration in the area which will apparently be a coalition of Arabian nationalists and feudal sheikhdoms. It is rather like saying that Great Britain will be given independence as soon as a Government can be got together led by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and the Marquess of Salisbury. It is precisely that.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Not quite that.

Mr. Thorpe: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can speak with more personal knowledge about the Marquess of Salisbury and perhaps some feudal sheikhdoms are more progressive! We are dealing with a situation in which we must remember that the Chief Minister of Aden, Abdul Mackawee, was dismissed in March, 1965, for opposing the Federation and supporting F.L.O.S.Y. which had nationalist intentions and apparently also supporting terrorism. For precisely similar reasons we put in prison Dr. Banda, Mr. Nehru, President Kenyatta, Archbishop Makarios and almost every other African or Asian leader in the present Commonwealth.
I remember saying to Dr. Banda when I met him on his release from gaol that he would be Prime Minister because he had been in prison which was the university for Commonwealth statesmen.
A large part of the Foreign Secretary's speech was that it would be possible to bring about this kind of caretaker administration. It is redolent of all the arguments we heard from the Tory Government about how the Central African Federation would work, how it was in the interests of everyone and how Joshua Nkomo and Roy Welensky and the others would all meet at Lancaster House, how the chiefs were coming from Northern Rhodesia and all of them would work together. There would be massive economic aid and, if needed, some guarantee from this country.
What we have to ask is not whether a caretaker administration can be formed but what is to be the position in one year or 18 months after independence. It is suggested that there is no move to break up the Federation. I think that is perfectly correct. I think the reason is that on the one hand there are the feudal sheikhdoms and, on the other, the nationalists each of which believes that it will be able to dominate the whole territory to the exclusion of the other. It is a double-or-nothing argument and each is prepared to take the risk but it could well be that 18 months after that Federation the threat would not come from without but from within. The Foreign Secretary said that this has nothing to do with Malaysia, but I think it has a tremendous amount to do with Malaysia because Aden is the Singapore of the Arabian Federation today.
The absence of any reference to the political situation or the diverse elements in this Federation is something to which we should give very much greater attention in this debate. After all, we have seen shotgun marriages in Central Africa, in the Caribbean and in Malaysia, and we have seen them break up. I prophesy that, if this goes through, Aden will secede within two years of independence and it will do so after bloodshed. If that is the case, will it not be very much better now to create a loose confederation? The Foreign Secretary said that the eastern protectorates will not be forced to join the 23 feudal States of the Federation. That is quite right; he wants that to come if it be the wish to have the inhabitants afterwards. I believe there is much more logical coalition of interests there than that between Aden Colony, which is progressive, and the

rest of the Federation, which is far from so being.
This attitude is not surprising because, when the United Nations Mission went to the Federation, Her Majesty's Government approached it on the basis that whatever else the Mission was to discuss it was expected to prop up the existing Federal Government. Yet the terms of the General Assembly Resolution were that the Mission should take
practical steps for the establishment of a central caretaker government in the Territory to carry out administration of the whole Territory and to assist in the organisation of the elections.
Therefore, I suggest that one of the most important things is to consider the future relationship between Aden Colony and the Southern Arabian Federation.
The other matters are of purely minor importance. What for example is meant by a six-months guarantee? I took a note of what the Foreign Secretary said—
and for as long thereafter as Her Majesty's Government may determine according to the circumstances of the time.
That is a good piece of legal drafting but it does not mean very much. I hope that we shall hear more about that later. What is the position about the capital city? Is Aden Colony to be a sort of Washington D.C. with equal or greater political powers since it will be the nerve centre of the future Federation where the so-called nationalists and terrorists will gather? I hope we shall hear more about that.
A throw-away line by the Foreign Secretary which was equally thrown away by the Leader of the Opposition was when he said that we may have to suspend trial by jury. We were told that there would be suitable safeguards for defence. It is a very grave matter that in a British Colony we are suspending one of the basic concepts of our criminal administration. What is meant by "suitable safeguards for defence"? Let us hope at least that in some quarters of the Opposition there is some concern about that. I hope that we may hear something about the prospects of F.L.O.S.Y., and N.L.F. joining together as has been suggested in reports from Cairo.
Let us by all means work towards early independence for this part of the world. Let us by all means have some form of guarantee through negotiation, but let


us at least guarantee something which will be a durable political entity. I suggest that the present framework is something which will not and cannot last. I well remember from 1950 to 1957 being told that I was mad for saying that I did not agree—[Interruption.]—indeed the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) was one of the chief of those who said I was mad for not thinking that we could have a marriage between Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Even if the hon. Member for Macclesfield has reacted like one of Pavlov's dogs, Harold Macmillan sent out the Monckton Commission which was only allowed to go because its terms were so ambiguous that at the end of the day he was able to sell Roy Welensky down the river. We are not doing that here—

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I never said anything of the kind. The right hon. Member must be dreaming.

Mr. Thorpe: I am delighted. This is the pleasantest dream I have had for a very long time. I thought that I heard an interjection from the hon. Member, but if it was not meant to have any profundity of purpose of course I withdraw. We are now talking about spending a lot of money and using a lot of troops and effort to preserve a political entity which will not survive more than two years after independence. I think it much better to recognise it now while we are in control of the situation and while we can bring about a looser political association among those territories without bloodshed, possibly by saying to the nationalists, "Your sphere of influence is in Aden Colony" and possibly saying to the sheikhdoms, "Your sphere of influence is in the sheikhdoms."
We should face that fact now rather than propping up this situation and then in two or three years' time having Questions put down about the safety of British subjects, requests for troops to be sent and for the United Nations to intervene. I can see all this happening as we have had this kind of thing before. Before we say yes to all the package proposals made by the Foreign Secretary, let us at least see that the political entity we are to prop up is durable. In my view as at present organised it clearly is not.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: As I always do, I listened to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party with pleasure, great interest and a good degree of agreement. I feel less cheerful than he does. Perhaps it was because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), I did not have the advantage of knowing about the Government's statement in advance. The Foreign Secretary's speech has come to me as a very great shock and a very great surprise. When my right hon. Friend said to me, "A day or two's quiet on this, given the situation in the Middle East, would be a good thing", that was one of the few sentences he used which I cordially agreed with.
I found myself feeling that I had heard all this before. I found myself thinking that, if there was one way to kill the possibility of United Nations intervention, this was it, that we were going to prop up the Federal Government in their present shape, that we were going to give them massive military support, that we were going to meet terror with terror with new security arrangements. In effect, we are propping up a colonial puppet regime by British military force. I am afraid that any hope of effective United Nations intervention and help has been destroyed. I was shocked by what seemed to me to be contemptuous words, not only about F.L.O.S.Y., but about the United Nations Mission. I shall say a few words myself about that later.
I had not expected to hear the kind of speech we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Because of that, I had prepared a very short, and I hope reasonably uncontroversial, speech, having just returned from the United Nations, where I spent some time at the end of last week. I am puzzled now as to exactly how to approach this debate. I went in my capacity as Chairman of the United Nations Parliamentary Group, which has about 300 members of this House and of another place.
In that capacity, I was privileged to have a long conversation with the Secretary-General and his senior advisers. U Thant asked me to treat what we talked about as confidential and not to


quote him. I respect his wishes, and nothing I now say must be attributed either to him or to any of the many delegates to whom I spoke, including Lord Caradon, with whom I often profoundly disagreed, and still do, about Cyprus, but whose energy, whose activity and whose devotion in New York I very much admire.
In the last four weeks U Thant has been the victim of disgraceful attacks, many of them from countries like Britain whose recent record in the Middle East is nothing to be proud of. He has been attacked in a vile and scurrilous manner by a number of British publications. I weep when I think of the past of the Spectator under my and my father's old friend Mr. Wilson Harris. I hope that we shall soon have a debate about the Middle East in which we shall be able to discuss the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force from the Israel-Egypt border. If we do, I think that it can be shown quite conclusively that in this, as in all other respects, the Secretary-General acted with perfect correctness and with great courage and, indeed, that he took the only possible legal and practical course open to him. The idea that he precipitated the war is a monstrous distortion of the facts.
In Aden and in South Arabia, and in the future United Nations rôle there, the Secretary-General naturally takes a very close and a very well-informed interest. But it is the Special Mission on Aden, set up after careful negotiations with the British Government and discussions with the Committee of 24, that has the first initiative. I was very glad to see again my good friend, Ambassador Perez-Guerrero, the Chairman of that Mission, and, through him, to greet the other two members, Minister Shalizi of Afghanistan and Ambassador Keita of Mali.
As my right hon. Friend claimed to be, I am a very strong advocate of United Nations participation in the solution of the problem of Aden and the South Arabian Federation. I believe that the only hope—it may be a very slender one; perhaps it has become a more slender one this afternoon—of Britain withdrawing with dignity and leaving a peaceful and viable situation behind us is for the United Nations to preside over the political settlement and

for a serious United Nations presence to be in the area when we leave and for it to remain there.
I do not think that I need now argue again the case for the British withdrawal itself. As my right hon. and hon. Friends know, my views on this are quite firm and have not changed. I will only say that in my opinion the new Israel-Arab war which we have just witnessed has conclusively confirmed the futility of maintaining British military bases outside Europe and has finally exposed the arrogant pretence that, in modern conditions, such British bases have any function, except to cripple our domestic economy and to ruin our international reputation.
I am very sorry to say that I think that I am the only hon. Member who has been to the United Nations since the Israel-Arab war began. I am unhappy to have to report how low our reputation has sunk with almost every country represented there. It is not only the Arabs who are disgusted with us. The Israelis feel let down by us. The Africans and the Asians despise us. But very many of our best friends in the West and in the non-aligned world are bitterly disappointed and bitterly puzzled by the United Kingdom's performance there.
On the question of the withdrawal, I want to add only three points. First, the extraordinarily high standing of General de Gaulle and of France, with the Arabs as well as with the Israelis and in the world at large, in spite of the fact that militarily France was the achitect of the astounding Israeli triumph we have just witnessed, is due, not only to the fact that, unlike us, he does not play the satellite of the United States, but also because he no longer attempts to play the imperial Power in areas and ways which are beyond the resources of his country.
Secondly, I should like to make it clear that, like many of my hon. Friends and like many, if not all, the delegations at the United Nations, except, perhaps, the United States and Saudi Arabia, I find it entirely incompatibile for us to be withdrawing from Aden and South Arabia while making a military build-up in the Persian Gulf. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East covered this point very well. I want to add only this.


I understand that the V-bomber force is to be based in the Gulf area at Mazura. This seems to me to be absolutely crazy. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party made some predictions. I think that he will join me in making another very safe one, namely, that the next emergency, the next liberation struggle or the next terrorist campaign, whichever terminology is preferred, will of course be in our remaining imperial Colonies in the Persian Gulf.
Thirdly, the classic Conservative defence—we have heard it again in this debate—for our military presence in the Middle East and, indeed, the defence of our disastrous and shameful Suez campaign in 1956, was that this was the way to protect our oil interests. It may be that these interests are doomed anyway—not the supply of oil, but the pattern of British ownership of oil in the Middle East. But one thing is quite clear to me, that British oil interests will be safer in the Middle East when the last British soldier has left for home.
I come to the rôle of the United Nations in Aden and in South Arabia in solving for us a problem of decolonisation which previous British Governments have made it impossible for us to solve honourably and peacefully by ourselves. Ambassador Perez-Guerrero, Minister Shalizi, and Ambassador Keita, of the United Nations Special Mission to Aden, have been subjected to a great deal of ignorant and foolish criticism in the Press and in this House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, unfortunately, got a little cross with them on one occasion, too. As he knows, I have seen a great deal of their Mission, when they were in Geneva, when they were in London, and now in New York, and I have heard their account as well as his of what happened. I have no hesitation in repeating that they are three sensible and sincere men who approach their task in a moderate and constructive way. They were given ridiculous treatment in Aden. I will not go into it now, because Turnbull has gone—and I am sure all my hon. Friends would like to wish Lord Shackleton and the new High Commissioner all possible success.
My wish has become a little less enthusiastic since I heard the proposals they apparently made which have been

accepted by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am bound to say that when I came back from New York I was already a little puzzled by some of the reported actions of my good friend Humphrey Trevelyan.
Some of the more reactionary Members of the House may not agree with my assessment of the purpose and policy of the United Nations Mission in Aden, but the fact remains that they are the men appointed after a lot of negotiation by the Secretary-General in consultation with the Special Committee of 24 on the authority of General Assembly Resolution 2183 (xxi), and if there is to be any further United Nations participation and involvement in Aden the Mission's success must be the overriding factor in everything the British Government do and say about Aden.
That is why I was so saddened by what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, and by the way in which he referred to the Mission's work, and I was astounded that he did not refer to the fast—and it is a fact—that representatives of F.L.O.S.Y. were expected in New York to have consultations not only with the United Nations people but with other people. I will not go into the details as the right hon. Gentleman asked me not to, but he knows well—if not, I will tell him—that since the Israeli/Arab war ended Egyptian representatives have given an assurance that the F.L.O.S.Y. mission is still expected.
My right hon. Friend derided this, and said they had heard many times that they were going here and there but did not turn up. I do not know whether he knew when they were in Algiers, that they then returned to Cairo, and that there was then no aircraft to take them to New York.
What he said illustrates my point that the British Government have been fiddling now for months. A settlement cannot be achieved except through the United Nations, and in fact, the F.L.O.S.Y. Mission was about to start negotiations with Ambassador Perez-Guerrero. The United Nations is the place where this can be done. It is also the place where the Aden problem can be settled. It cannot be done by private, backstairs diplomacy.
That is why I was so sad when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did


not jump at the opportunity of making the General Assembly the principal centre to try to get a settlement of the problem of the Middle East. The fact is that there is nowhere else where the Jews or the Arabs, or the rest of the world can gather together to discuss this problem. There is no other way to solve it without dishonour to this country and without leaving chaos and bloodshed behind, except by using the United Nations.
I was glad to see in New York—this was before the speech of my right hon. Friend—that the Aden Mission was intending to continue its work. The Chairman told me—this was on Friday at lunch time—that relations with the British Government were satisfactory. I am not sure how far he will feel that now. It is the view of some that the Mission would be better working in Geneva, and I had the view that, at a certain stage—I still hold it—it might be still better in Cyprus. But for the present Dr. Perez-Guerrero and his colleagues are in New York and think that is the better place, and, of course, with the Special Assembly starting, it is the centre.
That is where, many people thought when I returned from New York, the Foreign Secretary ought to be, not just for a flying visit and to make one speech, and then flying back, but staying and discussing and negotiating for days, if necessary for weeks—using the United Nations, in fact, as it was intended to be used, in the way in which it was used when Ernie Bevin was Foreign Secretary, and not as the "fifth wheel of the diplomatic coach", to use the phrase of General Smuts; not a place where diplomats acting on instructions meet, but the place where principals meet who can take decisions, make concessions, commit their Governments and work fast.
The problem of Aden and South Arabia is precisely the kind of problem the United Nations was designed to settle, a problem involving not just Britain and peoples hitherto subject to us, but also vitally involving neighbouring countries—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Yemen—and many other countries who are affected, because of oil, because of international communications and because of the threat to world peace which that area will be if it remains unsettled when we go out.
I do not know what view my hon. Friends will have at the end of this debate, but I doubt very much whether I can support the Aden Independence Bill.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: After all the acrimonious arguments which we have had over the past year I was almost stunned by the Foreign Secretary's statement. Once or twice I thought I was listening to myself. In one major respect the package he announced does not go far enough, but in almost all other respects he has belatedly decided to do exactly what we have long been pressing him to do. At long last the Government have had second thoughts.
It seems that the right hon. Gentleman has now decided to stop running after our enemies, and is going to try, for a change, to work with our friends. He did not tell us today, as he did in our last debate, how proud he was to be able to claim Colonel Nasser as his friend. He must have been mighty proud of his friend during these last few weeks.
The right hon. Gentleman also appears to have abandoned his futile attempt to pass the buck to the United Nations. At last he is allowing the Federal Government to introduce their new Constitution which the right hon. Gentleman has been holding up for months for fear of displeasing the United Nations Mission. While efforts to broaden the Government will continue with the full co-operation of the Federal Ministers, the Foreign Secretary now evidently accepts that it is the Federal Government, and none other, to whom Britain will hand over on independence. Hitherto the right hon. Gentleman has assumed that the terrorists, because they labelled themselves nationalists, were the only true representatives of the people. Because the Federal Government have been loyal to Britain, he has treated them as stooges to be snubbed, ignored and, if necessary, discarded. I assume that he will now give the Federal Government his full support and help them to build up their authority, which he has done so much to undermine.
In one way or another, law and order must be restored in Aden, and very quickly. The present situation must not be allowed to drift on until the eve of independence. Britain cannot decently hand over to a successor Government a


country in a state of anarchy. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to stick to his time-table for independence early next year—with which I am in general agreement—there is no time to be lost.
The first task is to gain the co-operation of the population of Aden. Most of them long for peace and security. Many are in a position to give the police vital information about terrorist activities. But they naturally hesitated to do so as long as they saw that the British Government were playing with both sides. How could we expect people to take the risk of exposing Egyptian agents, while the right hon. Gentleman was writing letters to Nasser? How could anyone believe that the British authorities meant business, when they failed to bring to trial men who had been caught red-handed committing murder, and when they allowed terrorist organisations to march through the streets of Aden carrying banners and firearms? I, therefore, warmly welcome the decision to suspend trial by jury, which I have been pressing the Government to do for a long time. Apart from bringing murderers to justice it will, I believe, have an excellent psychological effect. It will show that, at last, terrorism is being tackled seriously.
I assume that the introduction of the new Constitution and the consequent merger of Aden with the Federation will have the effect of transferring responsibility for law and order to the Federal authorities. I hope that in his reply the Minister of State will clarify that point. I asked the Foreign Secretary about it, but he did not seem to know. I cannot believe that in taking these important decisions the Government did not consider the effect upon the responsibility for internal security in Aden of merging Aden with the Federation. If I am correct in that assumption, then I am sure that the Federal Government will justify the confidence which the right hon. Gentleman is placing in them. If only he had acted sooner, the lives of many of our soldiers and their families might have been saved.
The Foreign Secretary now also seems to realise that, even if internal order were restored, it would be of little value, if the country were to be left without the means of defending itself against

external attack. He sought to justify the Government's refusal to conclude a formal defence agreement on the ludicrous ground, which he has repeated on several occasions, that this would not be compatible with true independence. In our debate on 20th March the right hon. Gentleman said that the conclusion of a defence agreement, by casting doubt on South Arabia's genuine independence, would almost certainly preclude the international recognition of the new State. That is complete nonsense. Has the world refused to recognise the independence of Malaysia, with whom we have a defence agreement, or of Singapore, where we have a great military base? I know that the Foreign Secretary says that there is no parallel, but I cannot accept that. Did the United Nations deny membership to Malta, because she retained a British garrison? To come nearer to the Arab world, did Kuwait's defence agreement with Britain prevent her from being accepted by the Arab League? Why should South Arabia be embarrassed by a defence agreement any more than these other States?
The Foreign Secretary's statement today has, of course, completely exploded his own argument. While there is to be no bilateral contract, he has entered into a military commitment, which does not fall far short of a formal defence agreement. He has promised aid to South Arabia in the event of military aggression. I hope that the phrase will not be too strictly interpreted. In my view the most likely form of aggression would be of the guerrilla type. It would almost certainly start with the infiltration of forces from the so-called Liberation Army, numbering several thousand, which are being trained for this purpose by the Egyptians in the Yemen. I believe that Nasser's tactics against South Arabia would probably be much the same as Sukarno's tactics against Malaysia. If our agreement with Malaysia had been tightly restricted to defence against military aggression, our aid could not have been invoked, and the whole of Sarawak and Sabah would have been swallowed up by Indonesia. Now that the Government have come round to the view that British protection is necessary, they will, I hope, recognise that in practice this may involve ground as well as air operations.
Incidentally, at a time when there are universal feelings of compassion for the Arab refugees, it would not be out of place to spare a little sympathy for the Arabs in the Yemen who are being attacked by their fellow Arabs with poison gas. I join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in asking the Government to tell us what they are doing to stop this abomination. There is no doubt that they ought to raise this matter at once at the United Nations, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take this up himself in New York.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has rejected the view, held by some, that the external threat has largely disappeared as a result of the defeat of Egypt in the war with Israel. Those who take that view are making a totally false assessment of Nasser's likely reactions. Having suffered a devastating humiliation, he will grasp at every opportunity to rebuild his shattered prestige. After the annihilation of most of his armed forces, he can no longer contemplate any large-scale military operations. He is therefore likely to concentrate on those prizes which may be won by subversion and propaganda. With Aden already reduced to near-anarchy by his terrorist agents and with an Egyptian-trained Liberation Army ready to invade from the Yemen, South Arabia is the obvious target. Others would do the fighting. If they won, he could claim the credit. If they failed, he could avoid the blame. I do not, therefore, believe that the need for British protection has in any way been reduced as a result of the recent war.
I said that there was one major aspect in which the Foreign Secretary's package does not go far enough. It concerns the closing of the Aden base. Quite apart from our duty to South Arabia, is this really the moment to abandon our position in Aden, just when the whole of the Middle East is in turmoil? Is it not clear that, once we have pulled out of Aden, our bases in the Gulf, which the Government are busy enlarging, will become militarily and politically untenable? Is this the time to reduce our influence in the Arabian Peninsula, just when Russia is openly endeavouring to turn the Arab world into a Soviet sphere of influence?
The Russians have backed a loser. They now have to decide whether to double up their stakes and try again or whether to co-operate with the West in finding a lasting solution to the problems of the Middle East. The Governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait will also have to reappraise their position. They will have to decide whether to confirm their unholy alliance with Nasser who, as they well know, is out to destroy them, or whether to work patiently for the economic progress of their peoples, which requires a period of peace and stability.
At a moment when these vital decisions hang in the balance, it really makes no sense for Britain gratuitiously to throw in her hand and renounce any power she has to influence events in this area. I hope that on this wider issue the Government will also think again before it is too late. But I do not wish to press them now. I think that the concessions made by the Foreign Secretary are about as much as we can expect in one day.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: I do not propose to follow the right hon. Member for Sreatham (Mr. Sandys), if for no other reason than that, between his views and mine, there is such a wide gulf that I do not suppose that any interchange between us would be of benefit either to one or the other. I am grateful to his career in many respects, however, because it was his activities as Minister of Defence years ago which turned me into a nuclear disarmer.
I found the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary disappointing for many reasons. The first reason is that it will do much to undo the work he has been doing during the last fortnight. I have criticised his policy on many occasions but during the last fortnight I have felt in the happy position of being able to approach him and to say how much I have appreciated the work he has been doing. I am pleased to be able to say this again on the Floor of the House—as it were, in open court.
But I cannot help feeling that what my right hon. Friend has said today is going to make his task of reconciliation in the Near East that much more difficult. I think that he is bound to find the job more difficult because he is going to infuriate the nationalist element, possibly


to a point whereby there will be no further chance of reconciliation with it.
Secondly, I thought, after the defence debate earlier this year, when so many of us found ourselves unable to support the Government in the Lobby, that we were beginning to see a bit of sense in relation to the burdens of defence expenditure. But now we have come to a situation in which a Minister concedes the need for extra expenditure. He puts it at £10 million but, of course, from the very nature of the undertakings that he has given South Arabia—they are openended—I have no doubt that, if the policy contained in his statement is pursued, the extra burden that will be borne by the taxpayers through defence expenditure will be a great deal more than £10 million.
Of course, hon. Members opposite will no doubt be pleased. They are no doubt mindful of the fact that the post-war Labour Government were brought down, if brought down by anything, by excessive expenditure which both enfeebled our economy and divided the Labour Party. Since the Opposition have no other means of getting back into office that they can think of, they are quite prepared to see the British economy enfeebled. That is understandable. It is their job to try to climb back to office, but it is not our job to help them. Yet my right hon. Friend's statement, with its subsidy to the Government of the so-called South Arabian Federation, is going to do just that.
Listening to my right hon. Friend and to others, I am also mindful that this is one of the last of our imperial responsibilities that we are winding up. I am mindful that this is one of those occasions when I feel rather divided because, as an ex-member of the Colonial Service—I was proud to serve for some years in West Africa—I could see at close quarters the useful service which British Colonial servants could give on the ground. There has always been a conflict between the useful work done day to day by the British authorities on the ground in the Colonies and the astonishing pattern of folly and stupidity pursued at high level by Governments of both parties and by the higher echelons of administration.
We should be laying Lord Lugard's ghost. I want to refer to him for a

minute of two. He was one of the three most significant figures in our nineteenth century imperial rôle in Africa. The other two were David Livingstone, who was, I suppose, a saint, and the other was Cecil Rhodes, the precursor of the great train robbers.
Lord Lugard was a man of great distinction but one legacy he left behind was the system of indirect rule. It was adopted not only in Africa but in other colonial territories as well. It was adopted because the administration on the strength of the Colonial Office was so small compared with its responsibilities. Unfortunately, what was originally a policy born of necessity became a kind of obsession with the Colonial Office.
What we have done in the last stages of colonial administration has been to shore up traditional authority wherever it was, however undemocratic and however incompetent. This has almost always had the same results. We gave independence in Zanzibar to a Sultanate which collapsed in just over a month after independence was granted. We gave indepence to Nigeria, leaving the Emirate system in Northern Nigeria untouched. We know what is happenning there now.
We tried to do the same thing in Uganda and there was the rift between Buganda and the rest of the country. We attempted it to some extent in Rhodesia, with Barotseland, but this attempt was squashed. We are doing exactly the same thing with the High Commission Territories in South Africa. We have given independence to undemocratic Lesotho and we are going to give independence to equally undemocratic Swaziland in a few months' time.
In Aden, the pattern is exactly the same. We have married together, in a shotgun marriage, a conglomeration of undemocratic States, lumped them with the town of Aden; given them an elaborate written Constitution, and expected them to work together. So far as I can see, the effect of that will be merely to ensure that the Arab nationalists will speed up their campaign of terror, because they will consider themselves to have been cheated.
At the same time, there will be no protection provided for the sheikhs whom we will have left behind, unless the Government are to go on providing military and


financial assistance to snore them up year after year, even though we cannot really afford it, and even though the only ultimate effect of our doing so will be to make it more and more apparent—to the nationalist movements in other territories, if that were necessary—that they are nothing more or less than our stooges.
They themselves can hardly be blamed for accepting assistance—for not looking a gift horse in the mouth—but we will do them no service. In the end, the sheikhs of the Federation will find themselves in the same pathetic situation as the Sultan of Zanzibar—probably exiled, if they are lucky enough to get away in time. I take no pleasure in that, I am not suggesting that we should be contemptuous of them. They are products of the historical situation that we have allowed to grow up there. The fact remains that, by putting them into this Federation and calling it an independent country, we will only make more certain their eventual destruction.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this point, is he suggesting that the successors to the Sultan of Zanzibar have improved law and order, or improved the lot of the man in the street in Zanzibar?

Mr. Lee: I am not suggesting that at all. I am not suggesting that winding up imperial rule is easy. All that I am saying is that to shore up traditional authorities in this way is an absolutely certain prescription for humiliating failure, and that in the last analysis, the people who will suffer most are not only the people of the territories but the unfortunate rulers, whom we have saddled in this position.
British colonial rule has gone through about three different stages, if one looks at the history of the last hundred years. We started, I suppose it was understandable, working on the assumption that we had all the time in the world to prepare the way for independence. This was an idea which was largely extinguished at the end of the Second World War, and with the independence of India. However, as Lord Colyton reminded us when he said that Cyprus would never be inde-

pendent, this was not entirely disbelieved by the Conservatives even then.
The second phase was when we realised that we had to think in terms of independence within at any rate a finite period of time. We still did not realise that the forces of nationalism were as strong as they were. People began to think in terms of 20 or 30 years before independence. Hon. Members will remember Dr. Azikiwe coming to this country in 1947 and asking for early independence. Although he was not to realise it, and neither was anyone else, Nigeria was indeed to get independence within 13 years.
Even at that time, British administrators all over the world were thinking in much longer terms. If this question of providing independence for a territory was a wholly technical matter, and could be considered outside the scope of the world power game, there is much for saying—and I want to choose my words carefully—that we have indeed given independence to a number of territories before they were ready for it, in the sense that there were large numbers of people who were illiterate, the Civil Service was small, the tasks they had to perform extensive, and the problems enormous. In many cases, it is most sadly true that the territories themselves were barely fused together. As we have seen in a number of instances, Nigeria being the latest, there has been a tragic tendency for them to fly apart, with the most violent consequences.
It may be that if there were no outside world, a steady and gentle progression to independence in Aden would be a reasonable policy to pursue, but I still do not think that this is compatible with propping up traditional authorities which have, for the most part, a vested interest in preventing the growth of democracy. There have been some very able traditional administrators in various parts of the world. One's mind goes back to Tschekedi Khama, who undoubtedly was a traditional leader of great standing, autocratic, but a man of considerable ability.
Such people are rare, and there is certainly nothing to suggest that there is anyone of that calibre among the sheikdoms of the South Arabian Federation. When the second stage, the leisurely granting of independence, was finally abandoned,


what has followed in most cases—and both parties have pursued much the same policy—is that the upsurge of nationalism became so great that no one, except perhaps the Monday Club, could ignore it. Then there has been a crash programme to independence. The task of preparing the groundwork, and seeing that there was a viable economy, even at a low level, of seeing that there was an effective Civil Service and a constitution that would be workable and acceptable, has had to be telescoped into a very short period of time indeed.
That is exactly what has happened in Aden. No one was thinking of independence in terms of any foreseeable period before 1955. By 1959 we moved into the stage of this Federation, and by 1963 there came this incongruous association of the Colony of Aden with the Protectorate and the sheikhdoms. Here we are now facing independence within a few months, and yet not one sheikhdom has any form of franchise whatever. At the same time, within the Colony of Aden, the existing franchise is to be extended, quite laudably, so that one has a democracy in one part of the Federation, and no democracy in the other. Yet we are expecting these two parts to function harmoniously together. Even if there were no F.L.O.S.Y. and N.L.F., it is hardly to be expected that this could really function.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): To prevent misunderstanding, the proposed new Constitution will provide universal franchise for men and women, both in Aden, and the States in the Protectorate.

Hon. Members: When?

Mr. Lee: I am very pleased to hear that, but when is this to take place? Is there any guarantee that this will be done after we leave? This is the crux of the matter. All over the ex-colonial territories there are paper constitutions, elaborately worked out and rapidly torn up, by all kinds of people, Right and Left alike. Is there any guarantee that, when we go, the sheikhdoms and traditional authorities of Aden will honour the pledge, bearing in mind that they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by conceding the democratic principle?

Mr. Patrick Wall: Can the hon. Gentleman name any country in the Middle East or Africa where democracy as we know it exists today?

Mr. Stanley Orme: There is no reason why we should not try.

Mr. Lee: That was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I see no reason why we should not try it. What we are doing here is to hand over an unenfranchised body of people to a third party, who has an interest in preventing those people enjoying political rights, knowing perfectly well that once we are gone, although we give military assistance to prop up the States, we are in no position to insure that in time they will advance those peoples towards the democracy that we believe in.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I do not think that I will follow the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) on the effect of the ghost of Lord Lugard on the present situation. I am sure that it will be well written in a magazine, and we look forward to reading at an appropriate moment. At this moment, the General Assembly of the United Nations is meeting and the Russians have launched a furious verbal attack on the State of Israel. It is therefore only appropriate that we should do something to try to elevate the debate a little above the level to which it has fallen.
There are welcome conversions to common sense by members of the Front Bench opposite. I concede that they have had difficulties. We remember what happened over Bahrain. They have had difficulties with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). They will have difficulties with their own Left-wing. But what they have proposed today falls way below the level of events. They are not taking a realistic view of the situation in the Middle East. [AN HON. MEMBER: "You want the earth."] We do want the earth when there is a world crisis. The important thing is that the Government should be clear about what they mean.
The trouble over the last few weeks has been the total lack of clarity by the


Government in making various statements. There has been a lack of clarity over Israel and the Arabs. There has been a lack of clarity in the statement made today and the commitment of the people of this country in relation to the South Arabian Federation. Therefore, although I can welcome this conversion of the Government, who are almost morally extinct, if they are not on their physical deathbed, their statement arouses difficulties not merely among their disillusioned supporters, but among those of us who believe that it is necessary that there should be a policy in the Middle East and in that part of it where we have some influence.
This absence of clarity over the last few weeks can be pinpointed by reference to a few other matters. There was, first, the speech by the Prime Minister, made without any consultation, about the great force which he would send to the Straits of Tiran. Not only did it do damage, but it was impractical. There was the speech only the other night by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs about Israel's frontiers. That did damage. There was the totally ill-considered speech by the Prime Minister about oil. The trouble about hon. Members opposite is that they love to get into positions in which they appear dominant to the television audience, but obviously they have no effect. If they have any effect outside this country, it is against the national interest.
The effort to widen the base of local government in the area of the Middle East where we have some influence has failed again and again for the simple reason that the local politicians were not certain about whether we would support them after independence. They cannot yet be certain. Secondly, because of the extraordinary Government policy on defence, we have this impracticable concept of redeployment in the Gulf. Naturally, the sheikhdoms wanted to reinsure, and they have reinsured. Then there is our attitude to King Faisal and to the Royalists in the Yemen. There is our attitude to the desecration of human life by the use of poison gas by the Egyptians in the Yemen. Not a finger is raised against that by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) said that he has just returned from the United Nations. I

hope that in one of the secret talks which he had with U Thant he pointed out the feeling of many hon. Members about this type of thing.
The policy in the Middle East has been the pin in the grenade. If one pulls out the pin of a hand grenade, one gets an explosion. If we fool about with the defence of an area, there is the danger of a premature explosion. We have had a premature explosion, in no small way caused by the vacillation of the British Government. It has had its effects in Sinai and in the mountains of Galilee. We have seen how disastrous this has been for the Nasserite cause. Perhaps it is now becoming more apparent to the Egyptian people.
We still have in the Middle East—and undoubtedly the United Nations will whip this up—a miasma of hysteria in which clearly the Great Powers have failed. The Prime Minister, who takes so graciously upon himself this rôle of world statesman, can have some influence on events by being firm and tough over Aden. This he has singularly failed to do—whether it be in Vietnam, whether it be between Israel and Egypt, whether it be almost anywhere in the world or perhaps even in Paris today. Apart from his great poses, his influence has become less and less.
I go as far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and say that the Government, in view of their talks and new proposals to the Government of the South Arabian Federation, should negotiate a deal for remaining in the Aden base. What they have proposed today is a very strange hotchpotch of improbable arrangements. There is the arrangement concerning the eight Arab aeroplanes for which there are no pilots. There is no discussion of the ground environment necessary to make these aeroplanes effective. There is talk of Masirah and the V-bombers to be stationed there. This is in addition to the bases which we are building up in Bahrain. There is talk of this enormous quantity of arms which are to be given to troops who are not necessarily well enough trained to use them. There is talk of a great task force to lie off somewhere in the broiling sun, if it be summer, for six months—a commando carrier or a carrier with aircraft on it.
All this, from the military point of view, is rather impracticable. It would have been much easier to reach a simple agreement for the retention of the base by which we could have the facilities and workshops available for keeping our troops and aircraft in active condition rather than spread and disperse military forces for a limited time.
The Government could and should today have gone much further. I believe that they should have made a much clearer statement of their intentions. They should have made the simple statement that they were prepared to enter into a defence agreement with the new Government when Aden becomes independent at the beginning of next year. That would get rid of all the absurd military arrangements which hon. Members on both sides know will add immensely to expense, will not impress our enemies very much, and certainly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, will not deal with much the most likely form of subversion, namely, the type of guerrilla activity which Sukarno launched against our positions in the Far East.
I say these things because I believe that we are at a critical juncture in our affairs. It is not a question of looking back to Lugard or what the United Nations did. We have seen a major reverse, not for the Arab cause, but for the Nasserite cause and the "philosophy of revolution" which Colonel Nasser has preached for so long.
We have seen a major reverse for the Soviet Union in its efforts to build up that Nasserite expansion. This surely is a moment when there is a chance that, if we are firm in the one small area where we have power, we may stop expansion of the type which Russia is evidently trying in the horn of Africa for control of the Red Sea and which Nasser set out quite clearly in his statement on the philosophy of revolution in Africa.

Mr. John Lee: Will the right hon. Member give way?

Mr. Fraser: No. The hon. Member talked far too long.
Aden is the one place where the Government, by a clearer and firmer indication that they will give a defence agreement, could do much more than they have

done this afternoon in their vacillating statement, to make certain that those who want to disrupt the Middle East, to disrupt Africa and to disrupt our interests will be prevented from so doing.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I will come presently to some of the statements of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), but first I would like to revert to one of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and to a matter which was referred to earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. That is, the question of what representations should be made about the use of poison gas by the Egyptian forces in the Yemen.
I am in full agreement with the right hon. Member for Streatham and others who have said that the British Government should make every representation that is open to them, either at the United Nations or elsewhere, to express the horror of the people of this country and of this House that that weapon should have been used in the Yemen. We denounce it unreservedly. I hope that the Government have already made representations along those lines since the report was made by the International Red Cross and I hope that they will continue to press the matter.
We regard, however, the representations of the right hon. Member for Streatham on the matter as being hypocrisy in the first degree. We have never heard any word from the right hon. Gentleman that I can recall protesting against the even more fiendish weapons which are used by our allies the United States in Vietnam. We have never had representations from members of the party opposite, as far as I can recall, protesting in the same terms as I am asking for protests to be made against the use of poison gas in the Yemen.
I hope, therefore, that not only the right hon. Member for Streatham, but all other hon. Members opposite who may feel urged to protest about Egyptian methods in the Yemen, will consider their own conduct and their own failure to denounce the methods used in Vietnam before they raise this matter afresh. Many more people have been killed by far more brutal and indiscriminate methods


by our ally in Vietnam than by the Egyptians in the Yemen. I hope that this puts the matter in proper perspective.
I certainly do not justify not merely the use of poison gas but Egyptian operations in the Yemen. I hope, however, that it will also be understood by anyone who wishes to understand the situation in South Arabia that the origin of the fighting in the Yemen is not solely a question of invasion from Egypt. There was a revolution in the Yemen. There are republican forces in the Yemen. There are people—Arabs—in the Yemen who are seeking to carry out the same revolt against feudal or royalist authorities as is happening in many other parts of the Arabian peninsula. What Nasser and Egypt have done in the Yemen, whether we think rightly or wrongly, is to support forces of what they regard as Egyptian nationalism and republican revolt in the Yemen.

Viscount Lambton: Is the hon. Member aware that of the original Cabinet of President Sallal in the Yemen, which was put into office after the revolution, every one except Sallal is either in prison in Egypt, has been killed, or is in prison in the Yemen?

Mr. Foot: Had the hon. Member listened more carefully, he would have heard me say that I did not justify the operations of Egypt in the Yemen. I was merely saying and underlining the fact, which it is necessary for this House to appreciate if we are to understand affairs in the Arabian peninsula at all, that the origin of the matter in the Yemen was a revolt. That the hon. Member cannot deny. What has happened subsequently is a different question.
I was saying that the origin of the war in the Yemen is not an invasion by Egypt of the Yemen. It is a revolution in the Yemen. That fact cannot be contested. It puts the fighting there in a somewhat different perspective from the views given by some hon. Members who have spoken on this matter.
I come now to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. During recent days, when the war was raging between Israel and the Arab countries and when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a series of statements on the subject in this House, I

congratulated him because of the attitude that he took. I thought, and I still believe, that his sole intention was to stop the bloodshed and to seek a lasting and permanent settlement in the Middle East. I said that then and I repeat it now. I believe that that is the desire of the Government in their attitude towards the general negotiations for a settlement in the Middle East.
The Government, so far from deserving the strictures which were put upon them by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone, deserve congratulations for the efforts which they made during the week of the fighting to stop the bloodshed, which was the most urgent task of all. Therefore, I do not withdraw one word of the congratulations, if the Government want any from me, which I gave them on that occasion.
I hope, however, that that adds force to the fact that certainly I, and, I believe, many of my hon. Friends, feel a great sense of shock at the statement made by the Government today. I would like to explain to the Government why I am of that opinion and why I cannot accept the view which is stated by hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Member for Streatham, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) have a right to rejoice. They have a right to say that the Government have conceded their demands in great degree. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone is not quite satisfied, but most of the programme of right hon. and hon. Members opposite has been adopted. There are some emendations, but most of it has been accepted. Therefore, the Government cannot expect that those of us who supported them strongly in some of the previous Aden debates can be similarly enthusiastic about this policy.
We supported the previous policy. We do not support this one. Why should we? Right hon. and hon. Members opposite claim it as a great triumph that the Government have come to their view in these matters. If the policy of right hon. and hon. Members opposite about Aden or South Arabia had been so persistently successful in years gone by, had they been able to say that they left a harmonious situation in South Arabia and that they had left to the


present Government a position in Aden in which everything was going successfully or pointing in the right direction, they would have some right to their triumph, beyond the fact that they are able to say that the Government have been converted.
We know, however, that that was not the situation. What the party opposite left as their legacy was a desperate situation. They left a constitutional arrangement which will never work, as the Leader of the Liberal Party rightly says, and from which I hoped that the Government were retreating. I hoped that the Government's policy was by reasonable and decent methods to seek to discharge our obligation to people with whom we had made agreements in South Arabia to the best of the nation's ability but still guiding them towards a different constitutional settlement.
As far as I can see, however, the Government have committed themselves to very much the same constitutional settlement as was accepted by hon. Members opposite. This is the core of our opposition to that policy. We never thought that that Constitution would work, for the very reasons which the Leader of the Liberal Party has given. It has not worked and it shows no sign of working. Right from the beginning until now it has not shown any signs of commanding the allegiance of the main nationalist forces in Aden. Why should we be converted into believing that it will have a chance now?
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to justify their past and say that they were right all along, but we are not convinced by their arguments and never will be, because we do not think that the idea of amalgamating these territories together in an artificial Federation is likely to survive. I agree with the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) that, in a few months or a few years, after the process has been gone through of departing from the area, if we ever go through with it, the Federation will fall apart or will be torn apart. I had hoped that the Government were seeking other methods to try and escape from the situation.
What were the other methods? The principal method by which the Government were seeking to escape from the

hopeless dilemmas in which they had been left by their predecessors was through the agency of the United Nations. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their pathological hatred of the United Nations, seized upon this as another occasion on which to denounce that organisation after the visit of the delegation to Aden, many of us came to these debates specifically to support the Government in carrying through the United Nations policy on the matter. That was our aim. The Government had the fullest backing from us, and they were subjected to fierce attacks from the Opposition. Now that the Opposition are supporting the Government enthusiastically, they cannot expect support from us.
What is the part which the United Nations delegation now plays in this process and programme which the Government have outlined to us today? What opportunity has the United Nations for giving its view on these measures? Were these proposals accepted by the United Nations? Were they ever put forward to the Secretary-General in any form to obtain his views about them? I should like to know the exact terms in which the proposals were ever discussed with representatives at the United Nations, and what was the response. If we did not go through this process, what do we expect the United Nations to do? Do we expect them to come forward and give general support to the Government, and say that they think that the programme is right? That would be a very strange development, because we were still awaiting the conclusions of the United Nations delegation on its visit to the area. Yet, in the midst of that situation, when the Government said that they relied on the United Nations Charter for an escape from their dilemmas, they had taken action which removed the United Nations from the scene. I should like a detailed answer from the Government about what they expect.
Presumably, the delegation can give its views on this matter, though I am not sure of the constitutional position. But, supposing the matter is discussed at the General Assembly and those who set up the delegation say that they wish to recall the matter and have further discussion about it, and then a different verdict is reached? What is the Government's position?
It would have been much wiser, particularly on the part of a Government who were placing some reliance on the use of United Nations forces in the matter, if they had concluded these questions knowing the views of the United Nations before producing the statement to the House, rather than afterwards. There seems to be some hoodoo on the Government's timing about Aden.
After 1964, the Government had the wise idea of seeking an accommodation with President Nasser and the Government of the United Arab Republic. I know that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are so obsessed with their memories of 1956 that they would not dream of discussing the matter, but that was the view of the Government and of many intelligent observers of the Middle East. The Government decided to make this approach but, unfortunately, on the very day that my right hon. Friend set foot in Cairo, someone in London suspended the Aden Constitution. It was not the fault of my right hon. Friend that the negotiations did not work. His position was made impossible. What happened was that the Government's action about the Constitution of Aden upset any prospect of general negotiations with President Nasser and the U.A.R. That is what happened then, and it is what will happen again.
What the Government have done is to take action about Aden which will now upset the possibility of more general negotiations, and that is my final reason for believing that the Government have been unwise in rushing forward with this step at this time. They would have been wiser to have waited, even for two or three weeks.
Everyone has gone through something like a politically traumatic experience in the last few weeks. As a result, everyone has to look at the Middle East and its effects on world affairs and readjust his ideas. It is unwise for people to say that the whole situation in the Middle East can be solidified in the next few days. It is more likely to be in weeks or months that people will come to take a wiser outlook on these matters, and that affects Aden as well as the general situation.
In the midst of general discussions about the future of the Middle East affect-

ing frontiers, constitutions, South Arabia, and the rest, for the Government to say that they will settle the Aden Constitution roughly on the lines recommended a few years ago by the right hon. Member for Streatham and hope that the rest of the world will accept that as our contribution to the Middle Eastern settlement, for a start, seems a very strange way of going about the whole proceeding.
Right hon. Gentlemen opposite—and there are some others in this House—cannot speak in moderate terms about dealing with these matters, because they have something pathologically wrong with them whenever President Nasser's name is mentioned. We know the reason why they feel it. Many others feel it as well. However, it is unwise for this country not to recognise the status of President Nasser in the Arab World. If we want peace, and the stakes are so high that that must be the paramount aim, whether we like it or not we had better understand that President Nasser represents forces in the Arab world which are much more powerful than some of those people to whom we have been selling arms on such a prodigious scale.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who dislike the idea of President Nasser's name being mentioned without the paraphernalia of insult and innuendo which they attach to it perhaps will accept these words from someone who knows more about the Middle East than any of them. They were used in an interview at the weekend:
I have great respect for Nasser. Nasser is a patriot who wants to do something for Egypt. We should make an effort to talk with him.
That was a statement made by David Ben-Gurion in an interview with Bernard Ulmann, of Agence France Presse.
I do not suppose that anyone will jeer at Ben-Gurion for saying that. It was very courageous and, I think, very wise of him to say it. Certainly it was very much wiser than most of the comments which we have heard from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those are the thoughts of someone who lives in the area and who wishes to protect his country. He knows President Nasser, and he knows that it is unwise for people who wish to see a settlement in the


Middle East to engage in this xenophobic rage about President Nasser—

Mr. R. T. Paget: In fairness to Ben-Gurion, was not the point that he was making—and one with which I think we all agree—that Nasser might be all right in Egypt, and he should be kept there?

Mr. Foot: No. If my hon. and learned Friend had listened to the quotation, he would have heard that Ben-Gurion was saying that Nasser was a patriot and wanted to do something for Egypt.

Mr. Paget: For Egypt.

Mr. Foot: What hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest—and what my hon. and learned Friend, I believe, on some occasions has suggested—is that Nasser is a Hitlerian force who wishes to sweep across the whole of the Middle East and garner it into his own corner. This is different from what a much greater expert than my hon. and learned Friend has said, and this is why I quoted him. What has been said by David Ben-Gurion about how we should negotiate with, and recognise, the force in the Middle East is much wiser advice than that which the Government have received during the afternoon from hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been so largely responsible for bedevilling the position in the Middle East, and in particular bedevilling the possibility of our establishing better relations with the most powerful force in the Arab world. The Government should not rejoice because they have had such loudmouthed support from some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They should, instead, be warned by it, because they will have to come back again with a different policy on several matters.
In a few weeks they will have to come back and tell us the opinion of the United Nations on this matter, and whether they are going to abide by it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) rightly argued, they will, in a few months, have to change their policy about building up other bases in the same area. They will have to come back in a few months partly because of our own domestic problems, defence problems, and problems of our defence burden. The Government are deeply committed to cutting this country's defence burden to bring it into con-

formity with our capacity to operate it, and we are in favour of doing that partly because we believe that it will relieve our economic position and make us truly independent, but also because we believe that it could make a real contribution to the Government's status and influence in the Middle East if it were done intelligently.
Instead of that, the Government have once again succumbed to the pressures of the old influences, the Foreign Office, and the Defence Services. It is no use their saying that they have not changed. Everybody in the House can see it, everybody in the country will be able to see it. It is not a change for the better. It is a change from a policy which had a chance of working to the adoption of a policy which has failed, not merely over months, but over years. What we are trying to do in the Middle East is to collect the pieces after the crash which these people engineered, and instead of the Government saying, "Let us try to have a new settlement in the Middle East", they are saying, "Let us go back to the old settlement". They will never be able to go back to the old settlement in the Middle East and the sooner they make up their minds to that fact the sooner they can liberate not merely themselves but this country from the bondage in which they were left by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: One of the many charms of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is that, in the 20 years during which I have listened to him, his polemics have often been directed to his own Front Bench. If there is a mess in this country, it stems from 1947 when he was a Member of the House, but as far as I know he did not vote against the Government on this issue at that time.

Mr. Michael Foot: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record he will see that I voted against the Government on the Palestine Bill.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am glad to have that correction, but the hon. Gentleman was one of the relatively few who did. If there is a source of the trouble in the Middle East during the last 20 years, it is the then Government's over-hurried


withdrawal from Palestine in 1947. Most of the hon. Gentleman's speech reminded me of a middle nineteenth century Liberal, from which he has his origins, with the free-for-all in which he found something in common with the present leader of the Liberal Party.
I think that this afternoon the Secretary of State went a considerable way towards meeting the points which we have made for the past 18 months. I think that he meant in passing to pay a tribute to Sir Richard Turnbull, the last High Commissioner and all the members of the administration who have dedicated themselves to the welfare of the people in South Arabia. They have to live with these problems month after month, and do not only make speeches on the occasions when these matters are before the public. They are going through a very difficult time.
One point of principle which I believe the Attlee Government used to maintain—and I supported them—was that self-government within the Commonwealth meant help in defence against outside aggression and subversion, even if it was not in a formal treaty. Indeed, the fact that this was not covered by a formal treaty was what we felt the Commonwealth was all about, and I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will confirm that the Commonwealth still stands for this.
I raised this matter at Question Time not long ago, because this is of prime importance not only in South Arabia, but in the Commonwealth as a whole. In India in 1962, in Kuwait, and in Malaysia, in the Arabian world and in the Asian one, they expected that membership of the Commonwealth meant, ipso facto, defence against outside aggression and subversion. I hope that in the next policy change, which is bound to come, the Secretary of State will reaffirm that the policy towards the Commonwealth remains that adopted by the Tory Administration, namely, that we defend each other, because I believe that Australia and other countries in Asia are watching this most carefully.
I believe that there is an unwritten agreement on defence—and there are, of course, also written treaties—and this is why many Commonwealth countries are wondering whether Britain intends to try to defend these treaties, and whether she

will have the bases and the weapons—and reference has been made today to aircraft carriers—without which she cannot carry out her commitments.

Mr. Wall: Does not my hon. Friend find it strange that the Commonwealth has not been mentioned in connection with Aden, and Aden apparently has not been offered membership of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I do, and I think that she will ask to join the Commonwealth when the time comes. I cannot believe that this Administration will deny her the right to do so.

Mr. Paget: If the Commonwealth—and I think that this is a revolutionary doctrine—is to be regarded as an open-ended military alliance, what kind of Defence Estimate does the hon. Gentleman think will be necessary to implement it?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No different from the Defence Estimate which was presented by the last Tory Government. I think that within the alliance with the United Nations and with other members of the Commonwealth that was as far as we could go, provided that other people thought we had the intention of defending them, as they found in Malaysia.
This Government said, "Leave it to the United Nations". I have always given strong support to bringing in the United Nations as far as possible, but after what happened in the Gaza Strip can many hon. Members think that we can risk leaving this to the United Nations? There was a precipitate withdrawal, without reference to the General Assembly which, as far as I know, sponsored the United Nations Emergency Force. If there had been a demand to hang on even for a few days that might have made a great deal of difference to the situation in the Middle East at the moment.
Coming more narrowly to the Bill, I, too, welcome it. I welcome the transfer of power, and send my best wishes to Sir Humphrey Trevelyan who has taken over. His great experience in the United Nations, and with the Arabs, Asians, and Russians, will be of prime importance in future negotiations. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as


many people overseas, admire his approach and what he has achieved.
Until today I had grave doubts about the circumstances and timing of the transfer of power. The circumstances have been improved by the defence statement—which is what it amounted to—of the Foreign Secretary this afternoon, but my doubts are not entirely removed. Within months our new policy may show a result, particularly in the Yemen. An all-out war against a backward people has been carried on there without sufficient protest in this House or elsewhere.
I was glad when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the use of gas. Many Members have spent years trying to get certain types of weapons outlawed. Gas, for one, has been outlawed by the Geneva Convention, and we ought to make a particular point of protesting about its use in the Yemen. It is a factor which is helping to frighten the people in South Arabia. They are hearing horrific stories coming from the Yemen about the new types of gas being used. It is extraordinary that the entire Arab world, except for the Saudis, should be unconcerned about the use of gas. It is a hypocritical disregard of the true interests of the people there—it surely cannot be because it has been used by Arab against Arab?
I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell us why the International Red Cross has been so long in telling us what has been going on in the Yemen. Information has been supplied for years by the Yemen Relief Committee on what had been going on particularly over gas, but only recently have we been able to get the International Red Cross and Her Majesty's Government to take an interest—and we hope that in due course we shall also be able to persuade the United Nations to do so. It is disgraceful that this delay should have taken place in trying to discover the truth and bring it to public attention.
As I said, the timing of the proposals has been improved by the Foreign Secretary's statement this afternoon. There must be an earlier rather than a later transfer of internal security, however, and if the arrangements are to go as smoothly as we would wish, there is bound to be a period of internecine violence, which we

have had in virtually every transfer of power since that given to Ireland in 1922. Once the fact of transfer has been announced seekers of power will resort to some very unpleasant practices.
In my opinion the Middle East today is in a greater state of turmoil and resentment than it was in 1947 or 1956. Egypt will not accept Her Majesty's Government's action in South Arabia without doing her utmost to upset the situation once more. I hope that the Government will press on on the lines indicated this afternoon, although there are bound to be certain other detailed changes before we can achieve what the majority of Members wish.
I now turn briefly to the details of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the relinquishment of the sovereignty of Perim and the Kuria Muria Islands. Could not one of them be left as a base for the United Nations? We have seen what happened in the Straits of Tiran. Would not one of these islands be an ideal base which we could at least deny to anybody else since it could be used to close the Straits? Perhaps this suggestion can be examined and further considered in Committee.
In connection with Clause 2, both my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary paid tribute to those of all races who are carrying on until independence is achieved and afterwards. I should like to know whether enough is being done about these people, in terms of the safety of their families. A lot is being done for the troops, who can defend themselves in any case, but I should like to know whether we are doing enough in looking after the families of people who are carrying on in most difficult circumstances.
Clause 4 deals with pensions. I am sure that it is not meant to be cynical, but it refers largely to widows and orphans. That seems a little odd, prima facie. Will the Minister of State confirm that we will take care of the pension rights of those who have to leave—not only those who will come back to this country but those who will go to other parts of the world, many of them not having come from the United Kingdom originally? These individuals find the life work to which they set themselves being destroyed. It would ease their next few months during this extremely


difficult period if they could be assured that not only widows' and orphans' pensions are being properly taken care of but also the pensions of all those who will have to give up Government service at the end of this year or early next year.
Those who recall the events of 1947 in Palestine and Kashmir will remember the legacy of bitterness that was left behind because of the mistiming of the transfer of power. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has had the courage to change his policy to the extent he has and has kept his mind open with regard to future action if internal aggression and subversion should be delayed until the time when it is clear that we are going to leave.
I hope we shall make it clear that if the Federation remains a member of the Commonwealth she will retain our protection, at least until the United Nations makes it clear that it can do better than it did in the Gaza Strip. The present situation in the Middle East is a direct result of British action in 1947, with the hurried withdrawal from Palestine. It was not a question of denying the transfer of power, but the circumstances in which it was carried out. A major contributory cause of the present situation in the Middle East is British vacillation in South Arabia during the last 18 months.
We wish the Foreign Secretary well in his trip to the United Nations this afternoon. As for his speech—so far so good, but the next few weeks and months need the most careful and sympathetic continuing action on our part, as the situation develops. Our aim must be to keep at least one area of the Middle East stable, and to allow the people of South Arabia to develop in peace, and not to become another cockpit, as was the case in Palestine.
The whole House will welcome the Bill, and will wish good luck to all those who will carry on the future administration of South Arabia.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Whatever may be one's view of the United Nations it cannot be denied that the corner of the world that we are now discussing is of immense importance to every country. The mere fact that it has been held for so long as a large and important military base demonstrates its

strategic importance and indicates how vital it is in the concept of power relationships between countries in the area and throughout the world.
The world community has shown an interest in its future in the past three or four years. The United Nations has been involved in the situation from the time it first became clear that there was developing in South Arabia a classic case of colonial disengagement, beginning with local revolts against the ruling power and the instabilities that always develop from that situation. As this became apparent, representations were made to the General Assembly, culminating in the resolution of December, 1963, which asked Her Majesty's Government to grant opportunity for free political expression, leading eventually to full independence, and particularly to promote elections under United Nations supervision. The point was made that progress towards self-government in the area before and after should be supervised by the United Nations.
Such requests and interest by the international community were dismissed with contempt by the Government of the day, who never hesitated to show that they had no time for the opinion or good offices of the United Nations when it did not suit their policy over any particular problem. However, when a Labour Goverment came to power, I was glad to see a change of attitude, bringing cooperation and a desire to meet the world community and take into account the opinions and feelings of the General Assembly and try to use its good offices to extricate this country from a difficult and serious situation which had been aggravated by the political incompetence of the previous Government.
Thus, we declared that there would be independence and accepted the offer of a U.N. Mission to help ease the problems of transition from para-colonial status. No one here, I am sure, under-rates the problems in that part of the world, especially when we know that not only are there very serious political and social problems, but that that part of the world is of great and legitimate importance to the Arab States, the United Arab Republic, Saudi Arabia and the Yemen, who are entitled to have their views and interests recognised in the political settlement.
Aden is as strategically important to the control of that part of the Red Sea as the Sharm el Sheikh is to the Gulf of Aqaba. It could be of just as much concern to them if it fell into hands hostile to the U.A.R. as the hostility of a power poised on the Sharm el Sheikh was to Israel's. It is reasonable, therefore, that these countries should take an interest and have a voice in the settlement in that part of the world and that the international community should have some say in the settlement of an area so strategically sensitive for the world's shipping.
I therefore welcome the Government's move to embrace United Nations' help and accept the U.N. Mission and I was particularly impressed when Lord Caradon said in the United Nations:
It should be left to the Mission to decide whether and how to proceed with its task.
On behalf of the British Government, he was saying that the Mission should do its job in its own way. Unfortunately, it was not allowed to do so. The approach to the various parties which it thought best was not permitted. It was interfered with by the local authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—oh, yes. It was not allowed to make precisely the kind of appeal to local opinion which it judged was best for its mission.
Consequently, it decided—I think rightly—that it could not proceed with its mandate under those conditions and withdrew. To the great credit of the Foreign Secretary and the British Government, every attempt was made not to exacerbate the position or indulge in recrimination, but instead to continue to use the United Nations' good offices immediately after that episode.
There were far-reaching political changes in Aden, which were welcomed certainly on this side, and I am therefore the more bewildered and astonished by the Foreign Secretary's statement today, as it represents a radical break with what has happened before. He has not explained this sudden change of direction—why, suddenly, the United Nations, which was previously, and rightly, regarded as a valuable instrument to resolve a difficult and complex colonial problem has been set on one side and why the Government have suddenly decided to go ahead with a ready-made, cut-and-dried, constitutional and military settle-

ment without reference to the United Nations, the U.A.R., Saudi Arabia, the very people and Powers most concerned with a peaceful and stable settlement.
I am the more disappointed because, unlike hon. Gentlemen opposite, I believe that the United Nations has possibilities which have not yet been realised, that it can grow in strength, stature and importance in solving these complex military and strategic problems. I had hoped that the Government would have seen this as a unique and special opportunity to convert an old imperial military base into a centre which might have formed a nucleus for genuine international peace keeping, and that the Aden base, with no great economic significance—it has been a military base, pure and simple, for a century and a half—might have been put at the disposal of the international community for that purpose. I do not underrate the difficulties, both financial and of agreement with the local peoples and the United Nations, but it might have been tried.
Instead, the Government have suddenly, abruptly and almost inexplicably turned their backs on the United Nations' good offices and gone ahead with their own cut-and-dried solution. A mistake has been made, a wrong direction taken, and a great opportunity of genuine and constructive international work missed. Apart from the strategic and military problems, the Government's policy leaves open several other problems which a United Nations presence might have done much to solve. There is still the social and political cleavage between the relatively modern sophisticated Aden State and the feudal sheikdoms. This description is no criticism of these people or their way of life but a statement of their present social situation, but the difference between their stage of development and Aden's modern and sophisticated society creates tremendous political complications. One simply cannot say. "This country will be independent in six months" and then imagine that one will have any sort of viable State.
I believe that had Her Majesty's Government sought to establish a United Nations temporary executive authority—for which there was an excellent precedent, in, for example, West Irian—it might have been possible to give these very different, disparate societies an


opportunity to express the direction in which they wanted to grow. It is possible that the people of Aden would not have wished to have been bound for ever and indissolubly into a federation.
The third problem is that of the Yemeni immigrant population in Aden, which has received no attention in this debate. It was the problem of the franchise for these people which sparked off the original clash with the authorities in Aden and which caused the general strike and subsequently the political and social upheavals which led to terrorism. Nothing has been said about how these people are to be considered, what safeguards they are to have and what arrangements will be made to see that the problem which arose originally, when the franchise was considered in Aden State itself, will not be repeated when an indigenous government tries to come to grips with the situation. A United Nations presence of the type I have described might have made it possible for this problem to have been examined and a peaceful transition arrived at.
The fourth problem is that of elections. The Foreign Secretary used a curious phrase when he talked about "eventual elections". It was not clear whether he meant elections between now and 9th January, just after 9th January or some time way in the future—that is, a time in the future when it may please a Government of South Arabia to hold elections on its own terms and in its own manner.
It is clear from the resolution of the General Assembly that the United Nations and people of the world at large place great importance on the holding of elections and equal importance on the fact that they should be held under impartial supervision and conducted in a manner which leaves no doubt that they truly represent the feelings of the peoples of South Arabia. My right hon. Friend's phrase "eventual elections" does not satisfy me and is not likely to satisfy the United Nations that we are preparing for a genuine transfer of power to a Government with a genuine popular base.
If the proposals outlined today are followed through, literally as they stand, we will be assuming responsibility without power. We will be taking responsibility for the South Arabian Government. It will be our creature, but we will not

have the effective power to interfere if things do not go as we wish. We will have the worst of both worlds. We will incur the odium of creating and setting up a government without a popular base. Rightly or wrongly, it will be regarded as a puppet Government and we will have no real power to influence what it does and what goes on in that country.
It is fundamentally wrong for Britain to give the kind of unilateral military guarantee which seems to be envisaged in my right hon. Friend's statement. It is not our business to guarantee the independence of any State. That can be guaranteed only through the provisions of the United Nations Charter and it is our business to act in concert with other members of the U.N. to uphold the provisions of that Charter. Only in that way will be able to bring stability to any part of the world.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I am glad to see the Leader of the Socialist Opposition in his place because on one point made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) I particularly wish to comment. He quoted some works spoken by Ben-Gurion about Abdel Gamal Nasser. I, too, admire President Nasser; his industrialisation of Egypt, his creation of a middle class in Egypt, the fact that he is a skilful politician and that he is a gambler who often wins.
At the same time, however, I believe him to be an enemy of my country and of many of the oil-producing States of the Middle East. I therefore treat him with grave suspicion. My admiration for President Nasser certainly does not make me a friend of his, for I believe him to be our enemy. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale will understand that point of view and it may explain to him some of the difficulties which he sees in following the policy of my hon. Friends and I.
Like the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) I want to do some stocktaking. Later tonight, when we pass the Bill, we will be disposing of the last of our major Colonies. Only small countries like Swaziland and British Honduras will be left, together with a number of islands scattered in most of the oceans of the world. When the House rises tonight we shall have virtually completed


the process which started with the independence of the Indian sub-continent. We have turned our Empire into a Commonwealth.
This being so, before passing the Bill on the nod, as I understand is the intention, we should take stock of the process of decolonisation. Have we succeeded in the dream which the idealists foresaw? Have we created a Commonwealth of independent countries, democratically governed and working together for the common good, or have we repeated the story of the Roman Empire? Having lost the will and power to govern, have we betrayed those whom we trained and have we abandoned the trust of the masses for whom we were responsible? The truth will, I believe, be shown by history to be somewhere between these two extremes, but I fear that history will find that it is closer to weakness and irresolution than to foresight and honour.
I say straight away that the principle that people should run their own affairs, even if we believe that they run them badly, is right. Our principles have been right, but because we have been thinking mainly of ourselves our timing has been wrong. "One man, one vote" has not resulted in democracy in Africa or in the Middle East. Rather, it has provided the means for the largest tribal grouping or political party to take over power and rule in the interests of that tribal grouping or party. Multi-racialism is not even referred to today in Africa, and even intertribalism has failed in many of our ex-Colonies.
What has happened in Africa and, to some extent, it is paralleled in the Middle East, is that the domination of one tribe or party has led to political autocracy, suppression of minorities, dictatorship and corruption such as to eventually cause such a degree of unrest that the only inter-tribal or non-party organisation—that is, the army—has taken over. Army rule is generally inefficient and, after several coups, political life restarts and back we go to the beginning of the whole vicious circle.
We have some responsibility for this state of affairs because, by subordinating the needs of the colonial peoples to our own party political considerations, we have speeded the tempo of decolonisation and have betrayed the trust which

we held for the masses of these people in the ex-Colonies—in Africa and in the Middle East. These faults of timing have, of course, been compounded by the United Nations and by our American allies, who invariably change their earlier anti-British administration policies when it is too late. Had we been men of stature, we would have stood firm. But instead we made excuses. We weakened and others fell.
I am not asking for another century of British rule, or any nonsense such as that, but for another five or ten years. I believe that to have taken another five or ten years in the programme of decolonisation would have changed much of the history of Africa, and would certainly have immensely assisted the Nigerian Federation, the Central African Federation and the States of East Africa as we know them today. At least we can say that we have achieved decolonisation without bloodshed—without our bloodshed—but what about the million or more Indians and Pakistanis, the 8,000 to 10,000 Arabs in Zanzibar, the uncountable Southern Sudanese Christians? What of the future of Nigeria, of the Burundi, of the Barotse, of the Lumpas?
When the Roman legions left Britain we descended into the Dark Ages, but they left a flicker of light which later kindled into the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Let us hope that the justice of British administration and the integrity of British administrators will be remembered in Asia and Africa when those two continents have passed through their present turmoil.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House may wonder what all this has to do with Aden. I believe that it has a great deal to do with Aden. Up to today the Government had decided to take action which would have created a vacuum, and had often displayed a bias against the Federal Government which might have made it impossible for the British to hand over to any successor Arab Government, as Aden would have been in a state of turmoil. There might have been no authority to whom we could have handed over.
The key of the situation lay in the difference of approach between the Conservatives and the present Government.


The last Conservative Government recognised the need for Aden's independence, but made arrangements to maintain a base with the dual purpose of protecting British interests and the country's independence against external aggression. To put it another way, because I think that these are the facts of the case, faced with the choice between the corrupt cowardly politicians of Aden and the feudal Federal rulers, they chose the latter, because they alone know how to rule and how to use power. This may not be democracy, but it makes common sense today in the continent of Africa and the continent of Asia. Up to today, the Socialists had made it clear that they would deal only with the politicians of Aden and would evacuate the base. Afterwards, when either their political friends had had their throats cut, or when Egyptian-led Yemenis started an invasion they would have raised their hands in pious horror.
I am glad for the sake of Aden and for the sake of British honour that today the position has been changed. The British Government have at last made it clear that they will back the Federal Government, will build up that Government's army and will protect the new State from external aggression at least during the first year or so of independence, which is always the most difficult period faced by any ex-colonial State assuming full nationhood.
By all means let them try to form a broadly based Government, but let us realise that this is unlikely. I say again—it is self-evident to those who want to see—that there are few places in Africa or in Asia, certainly in the Middle East today, where democracy, as we know it, exists, or where a Parliament based on the Westminster example exists. I defy any hon. Member opposite to mention more than three of our ex-Colonies in Africa which have democracy as we in this House understand it. If F.L.O.S.Y. and the South Arabian League want to play, well and good, but theirs will be a minority contribution. If not, there is no alternative—and it is quite clear from what has been said today—but to hand over by 9th January of next year to the Federal Government, which should now be able to succeed, with the support of their Saudi Arabian friends, in maintaining a cohesive State after independence.
There are alternatives. One is that the political parties—those corrupt politicians to whom I have referred—may start a civil war but that they could win only with considerable Egyptian help. That would eventually lead to Egyptian intervention which would, as I understand, activate the new defence agreements that have been announced today. On the other hand, if the Federal rulers prove too feudal, I believe that at a later stage after independence the Arab Army may take over to impose Arab Socialism, as has happened in several States in the Middle East. That knowledge is perhaps the best safeguard for the future of democracy in South Arabia. I am delighted that having now come up against the realities of politics in the Middle East the British Government have had a change of mind which will now have a good chance of saving the situation in Aden and the South Arabian Federation.
I want to ask the Minister of State two questions. The first is: have there been any discussions with the South Arabian Federal Government about membership of the Commonwealth after independence? If not, why not? Surely, such membership is not incompatible with membership of the Arab League. I believe that Commonwealth membership would greatly strengthen the new State after independence from both the political and economic point of view.
Secondly, does not the Minister of State agree that an aircraft carrier is one of the most potent elements in diplomacy? Could he rely on a few F111s operating from airfields in Britain? Will he not press his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to revise his policy of phasing out the aircraft carriers in the seventies, as the Foreign Secretary has today told us he has revised his policy over Aden? Had we wished to intervene in the recent crisis in the Middle East we would have been unable to us our base in Libya. Cyprus refused to make that island available, and even Malta refused to allow us to use the base there. In other words, had we had to intervene—which, thank heavens we did not—these bases would have been useless.
The only answer for the future if we want to intervene, as sometimes we shall have to for the sake of our country and


safety of the world, will be to rely on a mobile force—aircraft operating from aircraft carriers. Otherwise, we will be powerless over the whole vast area of the Indian Ocean.
There is now a good chance that the final period of our decolonisation may prove to be a success, and success in Aden would be even more likely if the Secretary of State were to translate his words into deeds and hand over the internal security of Aden to the Federal Government at the earlist possible moment. Then, for once, we would be seen to be backing our friends instead of appeasing our enemies.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Many hon. Members, particularly on this side, were shocked when the Foreign Secretary announced the package deal with the South Arabian Federation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has pointed out, many of us who have wholeheartedly supported the Government's past actions aimed at giving Aden its independence, and the Government's attempt to establish peace in the war that recently took place in the Middle East, feel that this change of policy at this stage can only harm the chance of a genuine peaceful settlement of the Middle East as a whole. Those of us who want to see a settlement satisfactory both to Israel and to the Arab States think that in the present state of Arab nationalism and the ferment in the Middle East, the Government's present action can only damage that long-term possibility there. The Federation as it now stands, created as it was out of the modern urbanised town of Aden, is considered by many of us as a bastard child. Nevertheless, it having been created, one hopes that some form of reconciliation with the forces of Arab nationalism could be found within the Federation.
When we went to the United Nations and asked for the Commission, in defiance of the traditional hostility of hon. Members opposite to the United Nations, we though that possibly some peaceful formula could be found so that independence could still be granted in January, 1968, as originally promised. We saw that the forces at work—some under the British Government—did not help the Mission when it went to Aden. When the

British Government made changes when Sir Humphrey Trevelyan replaced the previous High Commissioner and Lord Shackleton was sent out to find a satisfactory basis of agreement, we thought that this, in connection with and in conjunction with the United Nations delegation, would mean that some settlement might be arrived at.
I challenge the statement made by the Foreign Secretary that F.L.O.S.Y. was not prepared to meet and negotiate with the United Nations delegation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) said, F.L.O.S.Y. was prepared to meet the delegation. I spoke to Al-Asnag and most of the leaders of F.L.O.S.Y. only recently. We put to them very bluntly that it was in their interests and in the interests of peace for these negotiations to take place. We found obvious evidence that F.L.O.S.Y. was prepared to meet the United Nations delegation.
Despite what my right hon. Friend said about the members of F.L.O.S.Y. refusing to meet the British Government, I still believe that before the Middle East war—which I recognise has made it no easier for contacts to be made—there was the possibility of a meeting with both the nationalist organisations. If we do not come to terms with the nationalist organisations inside Aden and the Federation, can anyone in this House tell me how we can get a satisfactory stable Government? If we do not get such a Government, will not the situation lead to civil war in that country?

Mr. Wall: Rubbish.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said "Rubbish". He is entitled to his point of view.

Mr. Wall: Why did not the hon. Member reply to my question when I asked hon. Members opposite to name one country in the Middle East today which has democracy as we understand it?

Mr. Orme: I am not talking about transposing the system of the British House of Commons into any other State, but we could still have democracy and the will of the people represented. If the rulers of the country do not basically represent all the people, we shall not get stability of government. When free


elections were held in Aden, the nationalists won over 80 per cent. of the vote through free democratic processes. I do not think the Front Bench will deny that that proves F.L.O.S.Y. has much support among the Adenis themselves. Of course that has not been tested within the Federation and no one knows what the forces there are at present.
The British Government have accepted a Constitution and will allow it to be conferred on an undemocratic and non-elected Government, yet they talk about eventual complete adult franchise. I should like to know when that will come about. What precautions will be taken to protect the nationalist forces once the Federation Government is established? We have heard much about protecting Aden and the Federation from external forces. We have heard about aircraft carriers and V-bombers on the periphery to protect the Federation from external forces, but after the recent Middle East war one wonders what these forces will be. What about internal aggression and the possibility of the nationalist majority being abused by a Government which has modern sophisticated weapons that could be used internally?

Mr. Nigel Fisher: From what the hon. Member is saying, one would think that it was the federalists who were carrying out atrocities and not the nationalists.

Mr. Orme: I do not subscribe to terrorism, but the situation can be reversed very sharply when independence is granted. What guarantee is there that the nationalists would not be persecuted?
We are taking steps which are distasteful to hon. Members. We are abandoning trial by jury and setting up a rule by which trials may be decided by judges alone. What sort of rôle will that serve apart from the external military support we give to the Federation? We have to try to see this through the eyes of Arab nationalists. We have to remember that Arab nationalism stretches from Algeria to the Gulf involving about 90 million people.
My right hon. Friend rightly said that he wanted to get rid of the idea that this was an imperialist base and that we needed to remove British influence, but

does he not realise that this will be seen exactly in that way in the Middle Eastern area? That situation has to be viewed with the arms expenditure being increased by Britain to maintain the position and going up to £60 million. We know how these things can escalate and that, by the provision of aircraft carriers and so on, the amount may go to £80 million.
That is a very high price to pay when we should be telling the world that Britain's military role in the world has finished. When will this country come to the conclusion that we can no longer run other people's affairs for them throughout the world? When will Britain have sufficient confidence to try to arrange for a basic democracy and a majority Government inside the Federation? This is why those of us who place so much faith in the United Nations are very disheartened by this venture.
Has U Thant been consulted? What are his views? Are we to take this issue to the United Nations? Will it be debated in the Assembly? I hope that the British Government will not be playing a larger military rôle in the Middle East. Many of us on this side want to see the complete banning of the supply of arms to the Middle East. This goes for French, American, Soviet and British arms. We do not want to see arms being piled in there, as we and other world Powers seem to be doing.
How can we achieve success in getting peace in the Middle East when we talk about a settlement at the same time as we supply arms? This redirection of British arms, particularly as it is to be concentrated east of Suez, will destroy the image that we were trying to get rid of our past and military commitments. We are to spend more money building them up instead of getting rid of them.
I cannot see how the nationalists and F.L.O.S.Y. will be able to co-operate on these proposals. This is the main tragedy. What steps are to be taken to bring the nationalist forces into the arena? Are the Government saying, "You can come in in some minority capacity in the Government. Either you accept these proposals or you are completely out"? It would appear that the demands of British, foreign and military policy in the Middle East as well as the Far East are absolutely contradictory. On the one side,


we make genuine efforts to make peace. The statements my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made during the Middle East crisis were admirable, courageous and correct. Then we run counter to that at a time when we should be using our influence to obtain the peace which is essential for the Middle East. These are the counter forces. We supply arms at the same time as we talk of peace and disarmament. Not only Britain, but all the major Powers are doing this. I am not criticising one power as against another. They are all equally guilty.
The Opposition on this issue tend to think in terms of the nineteenth century. They see things in the gunboat diplomacy period. They still talk longingly of British colonial power and all that that entails and Britain's world military rôle. That has now gone, but this does not mean that Britain's prestige is diminished in the eyes of the world and that she has no part to play. I believe that she has a major role to play, but she can play it only within the forum of the United Nations, playing the part of a Power which has the ability to lead. She will not be able to lead with this millstone round her neck and whilst pursuing a policy which is full of contradictions.
All the pressure by the Opposition to see the terms of the Foreign Secretary's speech and his rebuttal was not for their benefit but for ours. So far there has not been one speech from this side in favour of the Government's policy and the steps they have taken up to now. The debate has gone right across the party. It is a reflection of the interest hon. Members have in this highly combustible area. Instead of trying to dampen it down, we are likely to ignite it. These proposals will not work.
I believe that the whole structure will collapse and that this will lead possibly to internal dissention. Then where shall we go. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) wanted to go just a little further. Most hon. Members opposite had written outrageous speeches, but they came round with complete approval for the Government. The right hon. Member for Streatham asked what was meant by "external aggression" and talked about the internal problems which may be created. Would they

warrant British intervention? Shall we get involved in a land war? Do we want a Vietnam in the Middle East? These are the questions we must consider, set alongside our difficult international rôle and the great economic problems which exist at home.
I believe that the Government have made a major error today in publishing these problems: on this issue they have made a basic mistake.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: If I agree with the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) about nothing else, I must agree that we are in a very ironical situation today, in that every single speech that I have heard from the other side of the House has deplored the Government's new policy, whereas every single speech that I have heard from this side has congratulated the Government upon it. What we are all agreed about is that it is a complete change of policy. Broadly speaking, it is the sort of policy that we on these benches have been advocating for some time.
I join in the general congratulations from this side of the House to the Foreign Secretary and his advisers. I wish only that the change had been made sooner. Many lives might have been saved in Aden. Incidentally, many words might have been saved in the House in successive debates on Aden. Now at last we are to have a constitution based on the Hone-Bell Report. All I ask is: why not sooner? Now at last we are to have a defence agreement, in fact, if not in name. All I ask is: why not sooner? We are even to have an aircraft carrier included in the defence arrangements. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence now recognises that carriers are quite useful and quite necessary to Great Britain and that he, too, will shortly announce a change of policy in this matter.
I come to the only point in the package which the Foreign Secretary announced with which I do not quite agree. I am not entirely happy about the internal security angle. I believe it might have been more effective to hand over responsibility for this to the Federal Government, but I will return to this point later.
Now that the Foreign Secretary has changed course, a fact which I greatly


welcome, it is perhaps rather ungracious to continue to carp about past mistakes, but there are on the record some unjustified charges made against my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) which have never been withdrawn, and mistakes which I believe have been made by the Government which have never been admitted. I would like first to try from my point of view to put the record straight.
The background to most of the Government's difficulties in Aden and South Arabia has been their failure to acknowledge their continuing obligations under the treaty of friendship and protection of 1959 and their failure to honour the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham in Article 38 of the Report of the Constitutional Conference in 1964. That was a breach of faith for which the British Government have paid a fairly high moral price and for which the South Arabian Government might well have paid, but for the change of policy today, a very high physical price indeed in the future.
I do not want to spend long on the rather sterile argument about Article 38. The words were always perfectly clear. My right hon. Friend and I knew what they meant when we signed them, and so did the Arab delegates at the conference. No one was in any doubt at all in 1964. Later, Her Majesty's present advisers, who were not at the conference, changed the meaning of those words because, to save a little money, they had decided to change the policy and pull out of Aden. I do not know whether they are now even saving any money in doing so.
I would prefer that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues stated quite frankly and openly that we can no longer afford this commitment and that we are going back on an undertaking given by the previous Government. That, in a sense, would be a betrayal of our friends, but at least it would be an honest betrayal. As it is, the Government have tried to pretend that the words mean something other than their plain meaning. They said they were committed only to convening a conference to discuss independence and defence. That is not actually true, but they never had a conference because they could not agree an agenda for it; but defence was not even

one of the items on the agenda they tried to agree. So the whole story really is a complete fabrication, and a very obvious one, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well in their hearts that what I have just said is absolutely true. Do any of them venture to deny it today? I do not think so, and silence gives consent.
I feel badly about this because the South Arabian delegates asked me, at the Federal Constitution Conference in 1962 and again at the subsequent Constitutional Conference in 1964, whether a Labour Government would keep Britain's word if there were a change of Government in this country, and on each occasion I said they certainly would. I remember telling them, and believing it, that in Britain a new Government would never break the word of a previous Administration on an international commitment. The Federal Ministers accepted that assurance. They were let down.
It was not a very honourable chapter in our story. We have often had to abandon our friends when we have had to decolonise; that is bad enough, but inevitable in some cases. In South Arabia it was different; it was far worse, because there we were proposing, certainly until today, to hand over not to majority rule by their own people but probably to domination by a foreign Power. Aden for the Adenis is one thing, but Aden for the Egyptians is quite another. We were simply creating a vacuum for President Nasser to fill even if there was no commitment at all. I would have thought that it was a quite extraordinary and a very cynical policy to pull out without providing for the external defence of a newly independent State. And surely no one pretends—and indeed the Government's policy today indicates that they do not pretend—that the Federation would have been able to provide its own defence six months from now without our help. The South Arabian tribes, of course, would certainly have defended themselves, but the only outcome of that would have been that we should have plunged their country into the same sort of civil war that the Yemen has endured for the last five years.
In the meantime Government policy has until today achieved nothing at all except the encouragement of terrorism


in Aden. Hon. Members opposite who blame my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham for everything should bear in mind the figures the Foreign Secretary gave me in Answer to a Parliamentary Question on 28th March. In the two years 1963 and 1964 there were 40 terrorist incidents in Aden. That was when my right hon. Friend was in charge. Six people were killed and 86 were wounded. But in the next two years under the Labour Government there were 1,015 terrorist incidents with 117 deaths and 954 wounded.
In addition, in the last three months—I was told in Answer to another Question which I put on the Paper—the Government acknowledged that there had been a further 746 incidents, in three months, with 59 killed and 252 injured, a total of 1,761 terrorist incidents resulting in the deaths of 176 people, many of them British, and the wounding of 1,206 people. The Government have failed in their duty of maintaining law and order in a British Colony for which we are still responsible.
The trouble about the Government's past policy in Aden has been that it has been ambivalent, because it did not in fact back either the Federal rulers or the nationalists. My right hon. Friend, when he was Secretary of State, tried very hard for further reconcilation between the two, just as hard as the present Government have tried, but in the final analysis he supported the Federal Ministers and the legal Government of the Federation who have been and are the only friends we have in South Arabia. It is quite a good idea to support one's friends instead of trying to appease and placate one's enemies.
On that premise, I say perfectly frankly that I have always been against appeasing President Nasser and I have always preferred to align ourselves with King Faisal who is for the Royalists in the Yemen and against the Republicans who are dominated from Cairo. I appreciate absolutely that hon. Members opposite do not share that view. Many hon. Members are pro-Nasser and pro-Republican. I do not complain about that at all, for that is a perfectly tenable point of view; I do not hold it, but still, I can follow the reasoning behind it.
What I think is untenable is the attempt to ride both these horses at once, and

that has been the uncomfortable position of the Foreign Secretary until today. Once, in order to save a little money, the Government decided to pull out of Aden, their former policy was foredoomed to failure. To say that their decision was untimely is, of course, a complete understatement. They chose to announce it just at the time when President Nasser was going to pull out of the Yemen because his prolonged presence there was proving an expensive failure. When Britain decided to go, Nasser Nasser naturally decided to stay. It was clear that if he stayed Aden must fall into his lap like a ripe plum the moment we left. He also decided to step up terrorism in Aden in order to hasten our departure.
Therefore, the Government were in a dilemma created by their own ineptitude. They had let down the Federal Government, yet they could not back the terrorists who were, and are, daily killing British soldiers and Arab civilians in a British Colony. They tried to duck this dilemma by passing the problem to the United Nations. This policy and the visit of the United Nations Mission to Aden was a predictable—and indeed predicted—ludicrous failure. We really cannot hand over our responsibilities in this matter to the United Nations, and we must on 9th January, because we have no alternative, hand over power to the Federal Government.
The Arab world has divided aims—those of the nationalists versus those of the traditionalists. They can unite only against Israel, and on that not very effectively. So in the end one has to support one side or the other. The weakness of the Government's position, at any rate until today, was that they had never been able to make a choice, and their policy has been ineffective, and has failed. Today, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman has made a choice. I hope he sticks to it. I believe it is the right one.
There remains only one major criticism which I would like to make, and that is with regard to internal security. Terrorism in Aden must be stopped. Either we should state clearly that we do not intend to withdraw till this has been accomplished, or if that is beyond our capacity, we should hand over responsibility for it to the Federal Government. It is our clear duty to stop these murders or, if we cannot do so, to give the job to


someone who can. That is the only remaining criticism I have of the policy which the Government announced today. Apart from that, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman sincerely on the change of policy, and I wish him well in carrying it out.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Evan Luard: The Foreign Secretary made a statement of the greatest importance this afternoon—of the greatest importance both to the people of this country and to the people of South Arabia. I wish that I could feel sure that it was of equal long-term advantage to the stability of this area and to the welfare of the people of South Arabia.
His statement covered three main areas of policy. The part which has received the most attention during the debate was that devoted to greater defence assistance for South Arabia. To my mind this was the least important and perhaps the least controversial of the elements of his statement. I have always supported the Government in their attitude that it would not be right to enter into a formal defence agreement with the Government of South Arabia, though we should continue to give them the maximum possible defence support on an informal basis. I have always supported the Government in this policy, partly for one of the reasons which they themselves have given—that to enter into a formal defence agreement would not only not be in the interests of Britain but in the long term would not be in the interests of the South Arabian Government, because it would rapidly become a millstone around their necks and would quickly be seen to be a much greater political liability than it was a military asset. The South Arabian Government would become highly vulnerable to the charge that they were a stooge of Britain.
Proof of this fact, which I recommend hon. Members opposite to consider, can be seen in the example of Nigeria. We entered into a formal defence agreement with Nigeria in the early stages, but even in that country, which was then relatively stable and pro-Western in general attitude, this was too much of a political liability for Nigeria to be able to survive. The treaty was therefore abandoned, although defence assistance on an informal basis continued to be made

available. I am sure that the British Government were entirely right to seek to adopt a similar policy for South Arabia.
I must add that the argument which the Government then offered—that to give defence assistance on too formal a basis might represent a political liability for the country concerned—can be levelled to some extent at the additional defence assistance which they have now undertaken to provide. It is true that the total amount of this aid is not all that substantial. It is only an additional £10 million, an additional 20 per cent., on what they had already agreed to provide. But in part, at least, it is in a form which is much more embarrassing for them. This applies particularly to the undertaking by Britain to maintain in the near vicinity of South Arabia both an aircraft carrier with attack aircraft and air support for a limited period. I believe that this will render South Arabia subject to the same criticism of being something of a puppet of Britain as that which they would have suffered if we had entered into a formal defence agreement.
Having said that, I regard this as being a continuation of a policy by Britain which is right—namely, to make sure that even without an agreement South Arabia was not over-vulnerable to external attack and was as well equipped as possible to overcome internal subversion within its own borders. In general, I approve of the broad lines of the Government's military policy in this respect.
The next area which the Foreign Secretary covered was that of internal security. Here my opinion is divided between the two elements which he mentioned. There can be no hon. Member who does not regret that is was necessary to make the decision to suspend trial by jury in South Arabia during the present period. It must be one of the most valuable of the heritages which we make available to our successor Governments that we instruct them in the virtues and merits of the rule of law and, above all, perhaps, of trial by jury. But since we in this country have recently decided to some extent to water down that principle by abandoning the need for a unanimous verdict of the jury, perhaps we should not be so churlish as to resent it over-much if, in the conditions which exist in South Arabia, it has been found necessary temporarily to


suspend this very important right and principle. But I would regard it as of the very highest importance that the Government should make it clear that it is only a temporary suspension, lasting as long as the present emergency lasts, and that they will lay it down very firmly in any constitution which is finally adopted for independence for South Arabia that this right of trial by jury should be restored to the people of South Arabia as soon as conditions permit.
The other decision on internal security, on the other hand, is one which I firmly applaud. I refer to the Government's decision not to accede to the request of many hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) who has just spoken, to hand over internal security duties in Aden to the Federal Government. That is the right decision. We all know—it has been recognised ninny times in the House by hon. Members on both sides—that one of the crucial problems facing the Government in South Arabia is the very big difference which exists between the areas which were the Protectorates, the outlying areas, and the ex-Colony of Aden. These differences have been expressed in acute apprehension on the part of the people of Aden that they will become subject to direct rule by the sheikhs or federal rulers of South Arabia, and, above all, in their fears of the consequence if law and order and the maintenance of security in Aden is handed over directly to the federal rulers.
The Government were, therefore, right, for the moment at least, to withhold these powers from the Federal Government in Aden. The Government should aim at least to be able, at the time that independence is given, to establish some kind of local security force for Aden, a local police force, which in normal times should be able to make itself responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Aden. Those powers should be handed over to Federal forces only in a time of acute emergency. I do not deny that it may be necessary for a short, limited period to provide these powers for Federal forces in Aden. But I think that it should be the aim to make it possible for local Adeni forces normally to maintain law and order in that area.
I want to move now to the third aspect which my right hon. Friend covered and which I believe is the most important—the constitutional development of South Arabia as a whole. One must have sympathy on this aspect with the position in which the Government have found themselves. No one would wish to deny that the Government have done all in their power to induce the nationalist forces and the two main nationalist parties to co-operate in the establishment of a new constitution and in a broadly based government of South Arabia as a whole. So far, of course, they have failed. But when that is said, one must acknowledge that at least one of the reasons for the failure—there are many factors—is that perhaps they have adopted the wrong methods of securing this co-operation.
I ask the Government to consider what they would expect to happen if they themselves, in 1970, were to announce that the next government of the country was not to be established as a result of free elections in 1971 but that instead they had invited the Conservative and Liberal Parties to join them in talks about what would represent a broadly based Government for the forthcoming five years. They would surely find that the reaction of the Conservative and Liberal Parties would be that this was not the best way to decide who was to run the Government for the next five years and that these two parties would suspect that the Government had it in mind to maintain for themselves a position of much greater authority than they felt they would be able to win at the polls.
It is not altogether surprising if the political parties in Aden take a somewhat similar attitude to the established Government there—a Government, I remind the House, which was never elected and which have no right to call itself democratic. It is not surprising if the two main nationalist parties in Aden have resisted such a suggestion. The difficulty is enormously accentuated by the fact that these two parties themselves are engaged in an internecine struggle with each other. This again makes the necessity of holding elections to determine which are the forces representative of the people of South Arabia that much more important.
The Government have said many times that it is their aim to establish a broadly


based caretaker government of South Arabia. The stumbling block has arisen because of the difficulty in finding any sure means of establishing beyond dispute which are the forces in South Arabia representative of the people of the area as a whole. But it happens that there is a device, a very well-tried and very well-known device, for establishing which are the forces in an area which are representative of the people as a whole. This is the device of holding elections.
It has been said, and there is some truth in the fact, that it is not easy to hold an election in the kind of conditions which exist in South Arabia today. This is, of course, true. But once the proposal was made it might well be that much of the terrorist activity would discontinue because the main aim of this activity is to establish the right of participation in the coming Government of South Arabia. The reason the Government have given is in fact not this, but that there is no time—that an electoral register does not yet exist, for example. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would in all humility submit that this particular justification for not holding elections does not hold water.
A great deal of abuse has been heaped in this House over the past year or two on the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) for his conduct of the affairs of South Arabia and I think that many of the things that he has said during the last year on the subject have been misconceived and by no means in accord with his own policies when he was in office and responsible for these affairs. In fairness to him, however, it should be made clear that, when he was Commonwealth Secretary and the Conference was held in July, 1964, it was clearly laid down that there should be elections in South Arabia as a whole before independence. I will read two of the conclusions set out in the Conference Report. The ninth conclusion said:
An independent Commission, to be appointed by the Federal Government with the approval of the National Assembly should, as soon as possible, carry out a census of the population of the Federation, showing in particular the number of persons in each State who possess the qualifications set out in paragraph 4.
The tenth conclusion says:
An independent Commission, to be appointed by the Federal Government with the approval of the National Assembly should, as

soon as possible, report to the Legislature upon the practicability of introducing a system of direct elections in those States which have not already adopted it.
Since then, as far as I know, we have heard no report of progress in these two tasks—the undertaking of a census of the population of the Federation as a whole and a report on the practicability of holding elections in States which have not already adopted them.
Just 18 months ago we received the Hone-Bell Report on constitutional development in South Arabia as a whole. Even since that time there should have been time to undertake a census to prepare the electoral registers for the Federation, to make all those necessary preparations which are required before undertaking elections in a territory of this kind. This is what we have done in every other colonial territory that we have had. It has always been regarded as a vital preparation in bringing colonial territories to independence—that we should have elections to establish a representative Government in the territory as a whole before granting independence.
I have yet to hear any reason why this principle is any the less applicable in the conditions of South Arabia, than it is for any other territory for which we have been responsible in the past. What this refusal to make the necessary preparations and to undertake elections in this territory before independence means is that we are, in fact, to hand over South Arabia lock, stock and barrel, to the existing Federal Government of South Arabia, or to something which is not very different.
It is true that there may be some slight changes made. But Members on both sides of the House who have suggested that it is very unlikely to be possible now, especially now, after what has been said today, to induce the nationalist forces in Aden to co-operate in any meaningful sense in any Government that may now be formed on this basis are correct.
In effect it will mean handing over to something very similar to the present Government, although there may be adjustments made: certain sheiks thrown out and certain sheiks brought in; there may be some others, let us hope there will be, who will be prepared to enter


into the political life of the territory, but it will certainly be a Government dominated by existing Federal rulers.
Let us consider what has been said in the past by many Members on this side of the House, including many present members of the Government, about this existing Government in South Arabia. When we were the Opposition one of the changes made over and over again was that the people of Aden, that is to say, the people of the town of Aden, were being handed over, against their will, to a Government of sheikly rulers in the Federation. I would like to read what I think were the very wise words of my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Defence, in the debate on this subject, in 1962, because a great deal of what he said remains extremely apposite to the situation we have today. He said:
… Outstanding among the reasons why local opinion opposes these proposals is that they mean tying Aden Colony,
as it then was
which is by far the most politically advanced territory in the whole of Arabia, to the reactionary sheikhdoms in the Federation. As Mr. Al-Asnag said in a good phrase, 'People blame us for saying that we do not want to go under the Yemen while there is an Imam there, but this Federation means going under eleven Imams at once.'
And the present Secretary of State for Defence added:
And so it does.
Later on he said, talking about the Emirates of the Federation:
… these Emirates are among the most backward States in the world.
and later:
One of the reasons why the inhabitants of Aden Colony object to this Federation is that they believe that their own political advance inevitably will be tied to the readiness of the backward Emirates in the Federation to accept them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 262.]
These were very true words at that time and I am afraid that they remain equally true today.
If it is wished to have some slightly more up to date quotation—it cannot be up to date because it must be before October, 1964—then in April, 1964, the Secretary of State for Defence asked the then Prime Minister about Her Majesty's Government's policy in Southern Arabia. He asked, first, if the Prime Minister

would consider revising the Constitution of the South Arabian Federation to make it acceptable to the people of Aden Colony, and he asked:
… is it not the responsibility of the British Government, who are still in a controlling position, to ensure that the constitution does not continue against the will of the inhabitants of Aden Colony who are our direct responsibility as the protecting power?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1964; Vol. 693, c. 1500.]
This again is a question which could be aptly raised with the Government today. "Is it not the responsibility of the British Government, who are still in a controlling position, to ensure that the Constitution does not continue against the will of the inhabitants of Aden Colony who are our direct responsibility as the protecting Power?" I believe that that is the most important point before us today.
We are responsible for the people of South Arabia as a whole, and this includes the people of Aden Colony. It is very well known that, in many respects, the people of Aden Colony do not see eye to eye with the people of the Aden protectorates, as they used to be. I continue to accept the Government's argument that it is probably in the long-term interests of all the people in the area to maintain a single political unit for South Arabia. It is true, as members of the Government have said, that there are very few people in South Arabia, including in the Colony of Aden, as it used to be, who demand a state for Aden which is separate from South Arabia as a whole.
We are, therefore, justified in establishing at least something like a Federation. But that does not mean that we are justified in placing the people of Aden town totally under the power and control of the Government of South Arabia as a whole. That is very different. What has often been suggested is that there should be some kind of genuinely federal solution which would enable the people of Aden to have a considerable degree of autonomy over their own affairs without being totally subjected by the people of the Federation.
The one slightly redeeming point, the one bright spot, in the Foreign Secretary's statement today was his suggestion that there should be established a new federal area including not only Aden, but


A1 Ittihad, the Federal capital, which might be in some way distinct from the remaining parts of the Federation. I very much hope that the opportunity is used of establishing this new unit to give it a considerable degree of autonomy in controlling its own affairs so that the people of the town of Aden do not have the feeling that they are simply being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the protectorates.
I finish by making two specific recommendations to the Government. I have said a great deal about the failure to arrange for elections to be held before independence is given. We were committed to giving independence, not by the beginning of, but at the end of, 1968. It would not have been difficult for the Government to delay independence for a little longer to make it possible to hold elections if they had not made up their mind that it was preferable not to do so.
I am sure that the Government's policy is wrong, not only in principle because it hands over the people of this area to a Government which has never been elected and which very few people regard as fully representative of the area, but because it is not in the long-term interests of this country, since what is absolutely certain is that the new Government will be regarded as a puppet of Britain from the moment that it is created. This will not be in its interests, and it will be subject to a great deal of hostile criticism and probably to civil war. Not only is it not in its interests, but it is not in our interests either because, as has been pointed out, the Foreign Secretary's recent policy has rightly been directed to trying to secure the co-operation of Arab nationalists, of Arab nationalism and even of President Nasser.
It would not be possible to secure that co-operation if we were seen to be handing over power in an important part of the area to a Government which was in no way representative of its people—though it might be more acceptable to the Government of Saudi Arabia or of other Governments in that area. Therefore, my first point is that even if the Government persist in their policy of not holding elections before independence, they should ensure that the Government which comes into power is committed to holding elections very shortly after the attainment of independence.
Secondly, in making this commitment, it should be laid down that such elections shall be held under the supervision of the United Nations. I am sure that those Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), who have pointed out the importance of retaining a United Nations interest in this part of the world, are entirely right, not only in the interests of the United Nations and of stability in the area, but in our own interests, because only this will give a guarantee to other nations, particularly the forces of Arab nationalism, that we are genuinely seeking to ensure the emergence to power of a representative Government in this area.
I very much hope, therefore, that in replying to the debate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will give an assurance, first, that we shall make sure that elections are held as soon as possible after independence and, secondly, that they will be held, if at all possible, under United Nations supervision.

8.45 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I will not follow the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) far into his speech except to say that as he interrupted a distinguished career in the Foreign Office to come into the House of Commons, I pay the hon. Member the tribute that I do not think that he is anything like as naïve as he pretends.
The hon. Member has talked about the problem of broadening the base of the Government in Aden. He knows perfectly well that broadening the base of the Government in Aden really means how many of the present Federal Ministers are prepared to sit round a table with how many of the F.L.O.S.Y. terrorists when the latter have been doing their best, in some cases successfully, to assassinate the Ministers or their wives. This puts the situation not only in brutal reality but also in brutal terms.
The House has been put in a difficult position by a speech from the Foreign Secretary which included an announcement and a statement of policy of immense importance, immense change and a conversion which would do credit to St. Paul on the road to Damascus. The Foreign Secretary's statement went into great detail, which makes it difficult


for hon. Members on all sides to digest what the right hon. Gentleman has said when we do not have the text before us, although I suspect that I know the reason for this.
In my view, the Government's statement could have been made on Friday. It could even have been released as a White Paper this morning. I suspect, however, that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues did not do anything of the kind but delayed the statement until half-past three, until the first speech of this afternoon's debate, was that they wanted to apply a kind of shock therapy to their supporters on their side of the House. One can see from the faces of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that the shock therapy has worked out all right.
What a lot of trouble would have been saved and, what is most important of all, what a lot of lives would have been saved had the statement been made six months ago. A lot of difficulties would have been avoided if the original statement announcing our withdrawal from Aden had never been made at all, because it was upon that original statement that the Foreign Secretary succeeded in rehabilitating Nasser.
As has been said before by hon. Members on this side of the House, Nasser was in trouble in the Yemen. The Yemen was an unproductive commitment and he wanted to get rid of it. Just when he was in the greatest difficulty, having signed the Jeddah agreement, along came the Foreign Secretary and helped him. The right hon. Gentleman must have heard from the monitored reports what was said on Radio Cairo. He knows how the statement about Aden was used. He knows with what dismay it was received by everybody—all our friends and allies—in Southern Arabia, let alone Aden. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows that and he knows what the reasons were.
Flushed with that bonus issue, Nasser then turned his attention elsewhere. He did what any would-be dictator in the Arab world would do, which was to have a go at the Israelis, because the anti-Israeli weapon is the only cement which can bind Arabs together about anything. No two Arabs will ever agree

about anything except their dislike of Israel. When they are not fighting Israel, they are fighting each other. This has been their story since the First World War. I do not say that the Foreign Secretary sparked off the Arab-Israeli crisis further north a fortnight ago, but at least he probably precipitated it.
At long last the Government have decided, suddenly and very much at the eleventh hour—indeed, they have just about caught the last train—that independence is not something which can be bought across a shop counter. Like neutrality, independence is of no value unless the country in question has the means of preserving its independence if it is assailed, or unless it has allies who are prepared to help it preserve its independence. The Indians were great exponents of neutrality until they were attacked by the Chinese, and then they screamed to us and the Americans for help. Independence minus the means of preserving it is a charade, but it has taken the Government a long time to discover it.
It may be asked why the Government originally took this disastrous decision. It was principally to get the Defence Estimates below the target of, I think, £2,000 million. However, I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us about the cost, because in Aden itself the alleged saving on the Estimates was greeted with a great deal of cynicism. In Little Aden alone, the value of the installations which we are abandoning, such as the married quarters, accommodation for officers and other ranks, recreation facilities and so on, all of which are only three-quarters completed, is round about £16 million. I suppose that they are being written off. I saw a big generating plant which had been three-quarters built and which was worth about £750,000. Building had been stopped and it was being taken down bit by bit and sent by ship either to Sharjah or Bahrain. It is a curious way of saving money.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wool-wish, East (Mr. Mayhew) up to a point that, until the announcement today by the Foreign Secretary, I could not make out what was the advantage of going to Bahrain. However, my reasons are quite different, because I take the view that, if we do not uphold our promises and pledges in one area of Southern Arabia,


no one expects us to do it in another. With everyone in Aden and in the hinterland in despair about the way that they have been treated by the Government, do not ask me to believe that, until this afternoon, the ruler of Bahrain or anyone in the Trucial States thought that the build-up of the base at Bahrain meant anything. They said, "We have seen all this before in Aden, but the moment that there is any threat, the British will be away." There is no credit to be gained from that.
It is different now, so long as the Government can convince those in Southern Arabia, both in Aden and outside, that when they say something, for once they mean to stick to it. That is the principle of this whole debate. The Government must convince the Adenis, those in the hinterland and those in the sheikdoms that they mean to stick to what they say today.
The threat to Aden is not removed by reason of the disastrous war in the Middle East. If anything, it is increased. There is nothing to stop Nasser trying to rehabilitate himself once again by "having a go" in the south. He has a lot of troops. However, I do not think that the threat will come that way. I have never thought that the Egyptians would march in column of fours down the Yemen and into Aden. But it could happen with the Egyptian terrorist movement by combined threats of assassination, bribery, and terrorism. I imagine that Nasser has not very much money these days, since his defeat. However, if the Russians gave him £1 million, he could buy the votes necessary to win over the Adeni electorate. The threat is not removed by a long chalk.
I am happy about the naval side of the guarantee, except that six months should not be regarded as the law of the Medes and Persians. There is nothing to stop Nasser or anyone else, so to speak by proxy, "having a go" at Aden in six months, plus a fortnight, or even a week. If it is to be by subversion, as opposed to directly from outside, I agree with what has been said by many hon. Members. I do not think that a naval carrier force is quite the method of dealing with that kind of subversion, because who will the aircraft shoot up? They cannot indiscriminately shoot up Aden in the hope of killing somebody who is a

terrorist about to subvert the Government. It just does not make sense. Measures to deal with any immediate threat by subversion depend very much on the authority of the British military mission, on the advice it gives, and on how much the Government listen to it.
At the moment Aden exists on a balance of fear, with two rival terrorist organisations on either side and British troops in the middle, not for the first time, holding the balance. Our troops are behaving with unbelievable discipline, restraint, good temper, and efficiency, in a way that no other troops in the world could behave. British troops are accustomed to fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. At the moment they are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, and both feet tied as well.
The "Amnesty" affair was a shocking performance, and the Minister of State knows it. The Government ought to have handled these monstrous allegations in a different way. The right hon. Gentleman knows that some time ago I was in favour of getting rid of trial by jury because members of the jury were under threat of assassination if they convicted, and it was not an idle threat. We cannot expect British soldiers, having had two hand grenades thrown at them, one of which has gone off, and one of which has not, to pursue terrorists down a dark alley and arrest them at considerable risk to themselves, only to find that when the terrorists are brought before the jury they are not convicted. The British soldier will not go on doing that. He will shoot in self-defence, and no one can blame him. I am sure that the Government were right to grasp the nettle and do away with trial by jury. There is no trial by jury in the hinterland, so there is the ridiculous position that there is one set of rules for troops in Aden, and another for the same troops when they move into the hinterland.
I should like to pay a tribute to Sir John Willoughby, who has just retired from being Commander-in-Chief, for the wonderful job that he did. I also pay tribute to Sir Richard Turnbull, the former High Commissioner, who bore the burden and heat of the day when the Government were not prepared to change their mind. I suspect that if Sir Richard Turnbull had been given as wide


a discretion as his sucessor, Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, for whom we all have the highest regard, some of the statements made today might have been made a good deal sooner.
Some very unfair criticisms have been made of Sir Richard Turnbull for his handling of the U.N. Mission. believe that he did everything he could, and a good deal more than he need have done, to help it. The right hon. Gentleman knows this story, and so do I and many other hon. Members. The members of the U.N. Mission were anxious to see only the F.L.O.S.Y. detainees in the Mansour Gaol. When they got there the F.L.O.S.Y. detainees would not see them. There was a not outside, and a good deal of shooting. The U.N. members then went back to their hotel and would not budge from it until they left the country. They knew before they arrived that the Federal Minister were de facto, and not de jure, but they would not see them, even unofficially. Nor could the members of the Mission be persuaded to go round the town. They would have had to be escorted. The only person who could have gone round the town with impunity at that time was the Foreign Secretary. He would not be able to do it now, following his announcement today, but hitherto he could have gone around unescorted because F.L.O.S.Y. regarded him as the best asset it ever had.
The United Nations Mission had to have reasonable precautions taken for their safety. On their departure from Aden Airport they behaved in a manner which was not calculated to enhance the reputation of the United Nations or the dignity of the individual members of the Mission. It would have required a playwright of the calibre of Ben Travers, with an all-star cast of Ralph Lynn, Tom Walls and Robertson Hare, to have produced the equivalent of the farce and charade that the three men of the United Nations produced on the day they left Aden Airport.
The Government have changed their mind just in time to avert a major calamity. They have changed their mind just in time not to lose all respect in South Arabia, and just in time to avoid a vacuum, as long as they do not waver. But between now and independence day we must get on top of the terrorists, or

we shall either lose the Federal Ministers or fortfeit the confidence of the sheikhs. Otherwise we shall be handing over independence to a complete bedlam of shooting and terrorism.
We have to underpin civilian morale. There was considerable danger that the banks and other institutions were beginning to cease to function. This is not a very good prelude to independence. We must help the Adenis physically and morally. If we do that, the Government can avoid another shameful episode. I support anything they can do to avoid that.

9.2 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have been in this House, one way or another, for a long time now, but I have not listened to a debate in which all the speeches in support of the Foreign Secretary have come from the Opposition and not one—except possibly that of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard)—has come from his own side. All the absolute opposition has come from the right hon. Gentleman's own benches. At least I can mark something noticed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition today: nobody on either side contests the fact that South Arabia should be given independence in 1968. The Government have chosen the date of 9th January, and that is fully supported.
The purpose of hon. Members on both sides of the House is fairly clear. It is to create a new State of South Arabia, independent in its own right and—just as important—able to maintain that independence by its own efforts. It is also clear, from the discussion today and from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government now fully agree that the Constitution of the new State must be essentially federal, and must include what is now the Aden Colony. There are few—the Leader of the Liberal Party, judging from his speech, was one—who would contemplate a separate entity, or some kind of loose confederation for Aden. The Government have accepted—as the Opposition have all along—the paragraph in the Hone-Bell Report which I shall quote, and with which the House is fairly familiar, namely:
No single person ever suggested that the correct solution for the present constitutional


or political difficulties is to detach Aden from the Federation and restore it to its former position as a separate country.
My hon. Friends and I have always accepted that it is desirable that the new Government of South Arabia should represent the broadest possible cross-section of the people of that territory. The process would have been very much easier if some Adenis had not become tools of an outside Power. Neither the Foreign Secretary nor anybody else in this country can insist that this or that organisation in Aden shall co-operate with the Federal Government. We cannot dictate who will co-operate and who will not on the day. Anyhow, it is therefore quite right, as the Foreign Secretary made clear, that the British Government's dealings will be with the Federal Government and that they will not delay the date of independence or the introduction of a new Constitution until the N.L.F. or F.L.O.S.Y. say they will join. Their obligation is to co-operate with the Federal Government, or, if they do not like it, to accept what comes.
The right hon. Gentleman and his Government, therefore, have now been forced to face the facts of life in this area, which have always been apparent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), and to our Conservative Government of the time, and to recognise that the constitutional form of the new State must be federal and must include the territory of Aden, although with specially weighted representation, perhaps as proposed by Hone and Bell.
One must not, in politics, say, "I told you so", but I will to this extent—the Foreign Secretary has been compelled by the facts of life to adopt essentially the same political solution as that proposed by the Conservative Government of the day and as that negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. It is a pity that right hon. Members opposite have taken so long to do it and so long to come to terms with reality, but it is better late than never.
The second governing factor which emerged from the right hon. Gentleman's statement and the debate is that the Federal Government, the Federation, is in the very early stages of its constitutional formation and is, therefore, through no fault of its own, internally weak and externally very

vulnerable. It is also incomplete, because the eastern States of the Protectorate have so far refused to join the Federation when its defence is not guaranteed. One can hardly blame them if they feel that the Federation would otherwise have a short, violent and very unhappy life.
Not only is the Federal Government incomplete, but it is also unprepared, in the sense that its armed forces are as yet largely untrained. Everything, therefore, every argument which I have heard used today, points to the need to provide security during the time—no longer, but during that time—that this young country is growing and until it can stand on its own feet. That has, at long last, been recognised by the Foreign Secretary and the Government.
The House has, of course, concentrated on the two essential aspects of security. The first is the internal security, particularly in the territory which is now Aden. The recent stories of terrorism and atrocities are shameful, and it is surprising that action has not been taken before to curb them. However desirable it may be in normal times to retain the normal and leisurely processes of the civil law, there are times, particularly when juries are intimidated, when the price in terms of the lives of law-abiding and innocent citizens, becomes too high. I believe that the Foreign Secretary is right to accept the recommendation of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan that trial by jury should for the time being be suspended. That decision is right and wise in the circumstances.
I should like to ask the Minister of State one question about arms. It has seemed to me for some time that there are far too many arms in the hands of irresponsible people at large in the streets of Aden. Why are they not being called in? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what Sir Humphrey Trevelyan's recommendation is in this respect. I should have thought that Aden should be cleaned of these arms, which are widespread within the territory.
The important decision to be taken about internal security is on the rôle of the Federal police and the timing of introduction of control by the federal police in Aden. The Federal Government will be faced with the most tough and ruthless gangs, who will try every device to unseat the Government in their early days. On


this question of the timing of the entry of the Federal police into the control of security, I am not sure that I was satisfied with the Foreign Secretary's answer to a question asked by one of my hon. Friends in an intervention; and I hope that, on this important subject, the Minister will state the position.
Are we to take it that the federal police will take over simultaneously with the promulgation of the new Constitution? That would seem to be the logical and right thing to do. Or, if that is not so, will the federal police be introduced well before the handover of power by the British forces? Internal security is certainly half the battle for survival. The incoming security forces must be able to build up an intelligence service, must know the location of the terrorist organisation and network and must be advised, by the previous occupants, of the techniques with which this may be dealt with most successfully. I trust that the Minister will tell us more about the programme and timing of the introduction of the Federal police to control internal security, particularly in the Aden territory.
The other half of the security of this new country, as the Foreign Secretary has now realised, is the provision of cover against external aggression. Right or wrong, my hon. Friends and I have at least been consistent on this matter. We have always argued that independence must be accompanied by a defence treaty, not unlimited in time and not of unlimited commitment, but a defence treaty which should hold for the time necessary to ensure security for this territory in its early days.
I am bound to tell the Foreign Secretary that it would have been much better if Her Majesty's Government had stuck to the Conservative plan for the right to use this base. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) pointed out, it would have been much less wasteful because facilities are already there for the deployment of any kind of power, great or small, that might be necessary to deal with infiltration.
It may be that air cover is not enough for the situation that will arise, as it has arisen in other territories, should we want to deploy some power on the ground.

There will be a military mission there and presumably, therefore, we will have the entrée—although I hope that it will be a friendly Government, and no doubt we will have access to the base. But that is a different thing from having a presence. We should, therefore, have retained it. It would have been much cheaper than the wasteful deployment of forces—aircraft carriers, bombers in relation to the island of Masirah—and the rest of it. When I ask myself whether the necessary security can be given to South Arabia under the Foreign Secretary's plan, even though his plan is more wasteful, I think that I come to the same conclusion as that arrived at earlier by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition; that the answer is "Yes"—more wasteful but, still, it could be done.
This being so, let us consider what it means. I understand that the Foreign Secretary proposes these items of help, among others; help to supply and pay for more modern arms, more aircraft—eight Hunters—assistance for transport and communications and that we will pay—and I think that I agree with this—for armed forces in the eastern Protectorates, at least for two years after 1968. We are to give six months' air cover with a carrier. Curious how these naval instruments turn up again and again in support of the Government's plans. They seem to be essential to the Government all over the world. Do the Government intend to rethink that side of their policy, too? I cannot help hoping that they will.
The most important announcement by the Foreign Secretary today concerned the V-bombers which are to be kept on the island of Masirah within each reach, and I marked down in particular his words "for such a time beyond the six months as Britain considers to be necessary". That is the commitment, the test being the security of South Arabia against attack from outside while South Arabia is building up her strength. It is true, as other hon. Members have marked, that this is not a defence treaty. It is true that there are not British combatant forces in the Aden base although, as I say, the situation might require them. But one cannot put any possible construction on the right hon. Gentleman's words other than that this is a pledge


to stand by South Arabia until she puts herself on her own feet and until she is secure.
I say this now, and I deliberately use the word "pledge", in view of what the Foreign Secretary has said about my right hon. Friends in the past and the Conservative Government of those days. We made a pledge. The Foreign Secretary has always denied that we made a pledge. I am telling him, and the Minister of State, that he has made a most specific pledge, and it is one to which he will be held in future years.
It is clear from what the Foreign Secretary has said that he has no longer any illusions, which he once held, about Colonel Nasser's intentions in this area. He, at any rate, gives no countenance to the specious arguments advanced by those of whom I think the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) is the spearhead—but one, perhaps, getting a little blunter more recently. Never mind, he leads that particular form of attack.
The argument is, in effect, that Britain ought not to attempt in any area of the world to exercise power and influence, or to deploy power on any scale even where we have the opportunity and the status to do it, because those days are past and finished, and really it would be better from our point of view, and everyone else's, if we gave up the attempt to do any such thing. In these days the argument has become quite common that because we have not been able immediately to protect our oil interest in the Persian Gulf we had better scrap all our commitments and not exercise any more power. The argument is carried a little further: they say now that we should abandon our commitments to South Arabia and in the Gulf.
It is true that, in the longer term, Egypt's comparative impotence and the necessity, which I think will follow on her latest adventures, to limit her commitments in the Yemen will help Saudi Arabia to go unmolested, but the House will have read, as one of my hon. Friends has reminded us, of Colonel Nasser's intention, expressed in the last few days, to stay in the Yemen and that it is still his target. The fact is, and we had better face it, that through a mixture of applied subversion and infiltration by the Liberation Army now in Southern Yemen, Aden

would be a push-over if British power were withdrawn. Could anyone conceive a greater boost to Colonel Nasser's tarnished image than a political victory in Aden to counter-balance his humiliations elsewhere? In our opinion, protection against such action in the shorter term and the medium term must be provided.
It seems that that argument has been accepted by the Foreign Secretary. After the fullest examination, a Socialist Government, which does not usually, and is not anxious in any way to, extend Britain's commitments in the world, has had to face the hard facts and come to the same conclusion as we have come to that unless Colonel Nasser's ambitions are met in this particular area there will be a strategic political victory of the first importance for Egypt in which, of course, the Soviet Union will share.
I remind the House of the passage with which the Foreign Secretary began his speech today and join it with a passage from the speech made to us about ten days ago when we debated the wider question of the Middle East and Egypt's action in expelling the United Nations force. The Foreign Secretary told us today how inextricably the question of the future of Aden and South Arabia was bound up with the power politics of the Middle East. Immediately my mind went back to the sentence he used ten days ago when he said that the House must remember that there were plans afoot in the world to change the balance of power in this area.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), whom I do not see present now, said that all our colonial policies would have been very much easier if we had had a quiet world in which to operate. We can all echo that, but where have we ever found it? We certainly do not have it in this situation. We cannot forget what has happened, nor can we ignore what we have witnessed in recent weeks. We have seen Egypt, a member of the United Nations, using poison gas in the Yemen. We have seen Egypt eject a peace-keeping force of the United Nations from her territory. We have seen Egypt move her armies en masse up to the frontier of a neighbouring State. We have seen Egypt blockade an international waterway. We


know—it is no use disguising the fact—that the Soviet Union has incited these Egyptian plans from start to finish.

Mr. Michael Foot: Rubbish.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) may say "Rubbish", but he knows that what I am saying is perfectly true. It is futile to say that such actions do not affect British interests and the interests of free men everywhere. It is right in New York and at four-Power meetings to seek peace, but if the users of such gas and the instigators of war were whitewashed in the United Nations or left in any doubt at all as to the infamy of their actions it would not be long before the free world faced a heavier bill in war. Therefore, it is essenital that these things should be said, and said plainly, now. Only thus do we get the foundation for a just peace.
I sum up in this way and I hope that I sum up the debate fairly. The objections to the Foreign Secretary's announcement have come from the hon. Member for Woolwich, East and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and others. They sincerely believe—I do not question their sincerity for a moment, why should I?—that we are over-stretching our power, that we should quit any rôle except as one member of 110 nations in the United Nations and should not, therefore, employ our power, certainly not east of Suez, in order even to contribute to what we conceive to be order and stability in the world.

Mr. Mayhew: Do we, then, understand that the right hon. Gentleman's view is the converse, that this country should be prepared to defend its interests in the Middle East by armed force outside the United Nations against Egypt backed by the Soviet Union?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am just coming to this. The hon. Gentleman has not put it quite as I would have put it. If, with all the history of Aden behind us—130 years or so of it—we were to abandon the Aden territory now to Egyptian aggression, this would be the most shameful thing for this country to do; and we should not contemplate it.
I am trying to sum up fairly. The case can be argued that our power is over-

stretched and that we should quit any rôle except as a member of the United Nations. I hope that hon. Members realise what will happen if we do this. The United States and the Soviet Union will be the only arbiters of peace or war in the world. Hon. Members may be prepared to accept that. I am not, as long as we have some power that we can contribute which will enable us to have some influence on these great issues of peace and war.
The differences are sincere. I disagree, therefore, with hon. Members for the reason that where Britain has a presence which gives us some authority and where the deployment of a modest amount of power can win an important political prize in terms of order and stability I think we should accept the obligation to use such power as we have on the side of law and order; not unlimited commitments, but to fulfil our obligations in a limited but nevertheless effective way. To my mind, South Arabia is such a situation; and therefore I believe that the action announced by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon is right.

9.26 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): As those who have taken part in the debate know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs conveyed his apologies at the beginning of the debate for the fact that he had to leave in the middle of the debate to go to the Special Session of the United Nations in New York. My right hon. Friend began the debate, as the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) has just said, with what amounted to a long, detailed, and very important statement of Government policy, announcing certain changes in the policies that we have so far had in relation to South Arabia.
I want to emphasise to hon. Members on both sides of the House right at the beginning of my speech that what the Foreign Secretary was putting forward was a package; it was a whole group of proposals that hang together. One cannot pick out from them what one likes, nor can one chuck out of them what one does not like, without the whole thing falling apart. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) was absolutely right in saying that there was


some danger of getting the military items of this total package somewhat out of perspective and concentrating the controversy on them. Inevitably, I suppose, these were the items in the Foreign Secretary's group of proposals that were bound to attract immense attention.
On the Opposition side, these proposals were met with something of the type of enthusiasm that the father showed the prodigal son when he returned to the fold. On my side, I am afraid that many of my hon. Friends picked on these particular proposals with very profound suspicion indeed.
I wish that we had had time to do what the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) suggested might have been done, which was to publish these very long and detailed proposals as a White Paper so that people could have had an opportunity to read them as a whole and therefore, perhaps, have taken a rather—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The only reason why we could not do this was the time factor, as right hon. and hon. Members knew. It was that, and that alone, which prevented us from giving advance notice to the House of these proposals.
Amongst the notable critics of the plan was my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). He used particularly strong and colourful language to describe the Foreign Secretary's package. He labelled it neo-colonialism. He thought it inconsistent with independence. He talked about our creating with these proposals a puppet regime in South Arabia. I would like to tell my hon. Friend in all sincerity that I think that that is a travesty of what is actually happening. We for our part have no interest in the colour of the Arab nationalism which will finally emerge as the Government of South Arabia.
I, in the years I have had some links with South Arabia, have had friends both among Federal Ministers and among the Aden trade union movement and what was formerly the Aden P.S.P. I regard both those groups of people as Arab nationalists, some of them more radical, some of them more extreme, some of them more traditional; but all of them are legitimately entitled to be called Arab nationalists. In this country our only interest is to ensure that the territory,

with which we have close links, and which has included a Crown Colony, should have its opportunity to establish itself as an independent nation free from the threat of outside aggression.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East I think suffers, like Oscar Wilde, from the fact that he can never bear to sacrifice a brilliant paradox for rather dreary and dull truth. I hasten to say that, unlike Oscar Wilde, his own honesty of purpose means that he believes his own paradoxes, but that does not make them any more true, and the trouble with the kind of sparkling epigrams we had from him this afternoon—I say to him, hoping that he may take it to heart—is that they really are ideal Cairo Radio quotes, and long after Britain has departed from South Arabia, long after our debate in this House this afternoon is forgotten, propagandists on Cairo Radio will be putting out these rather splendid phrases of my hon. Friend who carries all the authority of a former Defence Minister of this country.
I should like, in addition, to repudiate in the strongest possible terms the contemptuous language he used about the Government's policy towards the Arab-Israel conflict. I preferred the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who was not otherwise complimentary to the Government in what he said, who made it clear that in his view our policy in the Arab-Israel conflict was directed honourably first of all to preventing the war and then, when it had begun, to ending it with the minimum of bloodshed. This was what lay behind our assertion of the rights of free passage in the Gulf of Aqaba, and when we failed to prevent the conflict from taking place we diverted all our energies to bringing about the cease-fire. My noble friend, Lord Caradon, played a most notable part in helping with that at the United Nations.
I thought that, on our side of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale put fairly and squarely the main anxieties which exist on this side of the House. He said, with justification, that he had supported the Government over their South Arabian policies in the past. Why, he asked, should he support them now when, in his view, we appeared to have changed our policy? He said this because he argued that we appeared


to have abandoned faith in the United Nations as the alternative policy for faith in what I think he regarded as a group of feudalists. I want to tell him why I believe he is wrong. I know his anxieties are shared widely on this side of the House.
Our policy has not in fact changed in principle at all in this matter, neither in South Arabia nor the United Nations, but what has happened is that the pressure of time before the date of independence is limiting our choice of methods of achieving that policy. The aims of our policy—I hope they command the support of both sides of the House—are, first of all, to bring about independence for South Arabia in January; secondly, to withdraw our military base at the same time, or within a few days of that; and thirdly, to leave behind an independent South Arabia with a good chance of a prosperous future and survival as an independent Arab nation.
We in this country, successive Governments, have a good record of de-colonisation since the war—

Mr. Michael Foot.: Is my hon. Friend leaving that question of our policy so soon?

Mr. Thomson: I hope to develop it quite a bit. All I wanted to say was that we have a good record of de-colonisation and that it would be a tragically unfair black mark against this country if we were to leave chaos behind us in South Arabia. We are under an obligation to leave a decent independence behind us. We want this independence to be as broadly and representatively based as possible but, whatever happens, we cannot afford to leave a vacuum behind us. It is important to recollect that the Federal Government in South Arabia is the legal Government and contains Ministers who, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, have stuck it out in great difficulty and, indeed, with considerable personal danger.
What we had hoped to do by this time was to bring the organisations of F.L.O.S.Y. and N.L.F. round a table. The fact that this has not happened is not the fault of Her Majesty's Government We have tried and tried and tried again. We have tried in every possible way to persuade these organisations to

discuss the future of their own country sensibly and constructively. We made many different efforts. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the Foreign Office was in Geneva, he made arrangements to see representatives of F.L.O.S.Y. but they failed to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), who sent me a note to say that he is unwell and sorry that he is unable to take part in the debate, went to the Yemen on our behalf and sought privately to persuade the leaders of F.L.O.S.Y. to meet either officials or members of the Government and to discuss the possibilities of a round table conference to establish a more broadly based and representative Government. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale that we have made every possible effort and that what we are having to do today is a result of the failure of other people to respond to the initiatives which we took.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Does my right hon. Friend intend, or does he not, to deal with the fact that F.L.O.S.Y. representatives would have been in New York on the day that the fighting broke out with Israel? Why does he treat the United Nations with contempt when they were in touch with F.L.O.S.Y., even if he was not?

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend makes that point for the fourth time. If he had been a little patient he would have seen that I was about to come to that point.
We had hoped by this time that the United Nations, and the United Nations Mission led by Mr. Perez-Guerrero, would have helped to provide some political elbow room and that we should have moved towards the achievement of a more broadly based Government. The fact that they have failed to do so is not the fault of the United Nations Mission or its members. They, too, tried repeatedly to bring this about. The United Nations Mission has been frustrated by exactly the same people and in the same way as we have been frustrated. From the time that it left New York in March to this day no member of either F.L.O.S.Y. or the N.L.F. has talked with the Mission, despite its appeals.
We warned the Mission that time was running out and that we should be forced to take and to announce decisions. Hon.


Members must bear in mind that there is now less than seven months to go. It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that F.L.O.S.Y. indicated four weeks ago that they would come to New York to talk with the Mission there, but they have not yet turned up. Although it is now some days since the conflict in the Middle East ended, there is still no information that the members of F.L.O.S.Y. are yet taking off to consult the Mission in New York. In the meantime, time goes on—

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: rose—

Mr. Thomson: I will not give way again.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister obviously does not intend to give way.

Mr. Thomson: I wanted to go on to deal with the very important questions about the rôle of the United Nations asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. He asked the degree to which the United Nations Mission has been consulted by us about the proposals which have been put before the House today. The important part of those proposals—that is, the proposal for the naval task force to provide protection for six months—was described to the United Nations Mission last March when it was originally being talked about.
When the United Nations Mission was met by my right hon. Friend on its return from Aden, it was told that we would have to introduce the Bill now before the House. From that time it has been kept fully informed of our thinking on these matters and the proposals put before the House by my right hon. Friend today were passed on to my noble Friend Lord Caradon in New York to convey to the Mission as soon as they were available for conveying to the South Arabian Government.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: On Friday morning.

Mr. Thomson: That is true. The decision was only taken by Ministers on Thursday in London and the United Nations Mission was told at the earliest possible moment, at the same time as the South Arabian Ministers. This time factor is the reason why we have been unable to produce a White Paper setting out these proposals.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: At this point, will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate, not a dialogue.

Mr. Thomson: I emphasise again to the House that what has happened to limit the choice of policies more narrowly than we would have wished is the fact that we have only about seven months before the date of independence. Continued uncertainty is in no one's interest. Everyone in South Arabia now has a right to know where they stand.
This applies equally to the British Servicemen and civilian officials and to the British businessmen who will be carrying on in South Arabia after independence. It applies above all to the people of South Arabia, both the leaders of the present Government and all the various political groups. They have a right to know how much time is left before Britain leaves and what we are prepared to do to make independence meaningful and worth while.
Setting the date of independence, as we have done, and accompanying it by a package of proposals will help to concentrate everyone's ideas and energies. We have delayed the final decision as long as we could. We have done so in order to consider, as conscientiously as possible, the best way in which to fulfil our obligations and also in order to give the U.N. Mission every possible opportunity to play its part. We still hold that the United Nations has a very important and constructive contribution to make.
We have had a senior Minister out in Aden and South Arabia for two lengthy visits. We have brought in as High Commissioner Sir Humphrey Trevelyan, who is generally recognised as one of Britain's most distinguished diplomats, who knows the Arabs well and who is—this is not least among his qualities in his present post—one of our toughest troubleshooters. He is a modern-minded man with a profound understanding and sympathy for the aspirations of Arab nationalism. But he is a practical idealist determined that progress shall come peacefully and not through violence. The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire asked us what was being done about the Arabs inside Aden. This is one of the problems that Sir Humphrey is taking very


actively under his consideration at the moment.
These ideas, I emphasise, are a package and go together and are dependent on each other. I want to make a comment on each and take up some of the points made on both sides in the debate.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: In the last debate, all the Labour Members who spoke and the Government spokesmen were agreed that the United Nations should have an important rôle to play in widening the base of Government before independence. Are the Government determined to pursue this policy in future?

Mr. Thomson: I had hoped that I had said enough to indicate that we believe that the United Nations still has a very important part to play. One of the problems is that, uniquely amongst colonial independence changes, we are bringing South Arabia to independence in advance of general elections throughout the whole territory being practicable. This was an important aspect of the United Nations Resolution and I hope that the United Nations is going to continue, both before and after independence, to play a very important rôle there.
Having said that, I hope that none of my hon. Friends, whose anxieties about independence I share, will go on to argue, as some of them came close to arguing, that we should therefore delay independence indefinitely. For the reasons I have given, this would be an unsatisfactory way to proceed.
I turn now to the proposals regarding military protection from external attack while the new State establishes itself. On the naval offer, we are committing a substantial part of British naval power for a period of six months, and adding to it by making land-based aircraft, with conventional weapons, available to deter aggression for as long as Her Majesty's Government consider it necessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire pressed me about this. If I may say, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he said a good deal on how he defined this as a pledge, and then went on to describe the pledge in his own terms.
The House is entitled to know exactly where the Government stand on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman is

inclined to lecture us a little at times, and we on this side of the House are just as conscientious guardians of Britain's obligations in the world as any Government that this House has seen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The offer that we are making, although the bombers are offered for so long as Her Majesty's Government consider necessary, is not an open-ended commitment. It is not an unlimited commitment. It is put forward for the crucial first months after independence.
We will need to consider very carefully, as time passes, exactly how long it is necessary for this offer to be continued. Equally, I want to emphasise to my hon. Friends who have expressed doubts about this commitment that what we are suggesting is something substantially different from what the Opposition put forward in the days when they were the Government, or from what they have put forward from the Opposition benches since.
There have been a number of suggestions from the benches opposite, from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) in particular, that we should commit British forces to the ground in South Arabia. We have deliberately put forward our proposals in the way that they are put forward to avoid the necessity of having British combat troops, operational troops, on the ground in South Arabia after the date of independence. To do so would carry an unacceptable risk of provoking internal disturbances and of then being sucked into purely internal security operations. The hallmark of an independent country is surely its ability to maintain law and order among its own population. I believe that proposals that we have put forward on the military side of the package strike just about the right balance between giving South Arabia protection from external aggression, and not leaving this country with an open-ended commitment, least of all a commitment on the ground.

Mr. Mayhew: On a point of information, is it the proposal that combat troops shall be kept off-shore—afloat?

Mr. Thomson: There are, of course, to be some combat troops in the carrier-borne force. But there is no intention that these troops should be deployed on the shore, for operational purposes.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: What is the point of having combat troops off the coast if they can never be deployed? I really believe that the House should vote against this perfectly ludicrous proposal. It is ludicrous—a waste of money and time.

Mr. Thomson: This is a carrier force including a commando carrier, and these are the combat troops that I refer to. If the right hon. Gentleman, who has experience in these matters, thinks about this, he will realise that there is sense in it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must abandon his running commentary.

Mr. Thomson: It is equally important to make clear the limitations of these proposals.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: rose—

Mr. Thomson: I have not time to give way. I turn now to internal security. Here what we are proposing—

Mr. Sandys: Will the right hon. Gentleman be very careful in regard to this pledge of military assistance not to undo all the assurances which the Foreign Secretary gave earlier today?

Mr. Thomson: I have used words with great deliberation in order to clarify the minds of hon. Members, and I have no reason to withdraw anything that I have said.
I come to a point which the right hon. Member for Streatham made about innal security. We are trying to make some positive moves to permit political reconciliation and at the same time to take determined measures to curb those who are irreconcilable.
A number of people have asked about the rôle which the Federal forces will play in internal security inside Aden. The High Commissioner is at the moment actively discussing with the South Arabian Government the most practicable ways of phasing the Federal forces into the work of keeping the peace in Aden, subject to our overriding responsibility to this House for the maintenance of law and order in a British colony.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained, the N.L.F. is now politically put on the same basis as

F.L.O.S.Y. by having its legal proscription lifted. This opens the way for both the national bodies to join in the search for a more broadly based caretaker Government if they are willing to do so. But for those who continue to prefer the bomb to the ballot box the due process of law will be tightened up.
For a long time trial by jury in Aden has been an obstacle and not an aid in safeguarding the liberties of the ordinary citizen. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) indicated that he believed that the Foreign Secretary had put forward these proposals in a casual manner—a sort of throw-away suggestion, he said. I assure him that my right hon. Friend gave the most agonised consideration to this before he came down on the side of suspending trial by jury. On an earlier occasion, when this suggestion came up, he turned it down. But I think that in the circumstances as they have developed, this decision is right, although it was a difficult decision to take in view of our regard for civil liberties in this country. But there have recently been almost no trials by jury in South Arabia, and what has taken their place has been the much less liberal device of detention without any trial. Sir Humphrey Trevelyan is convinced that the institution of proper judicial proceedings before a panel of judges would contribute both to the rule of law and to the deterrence of violence as a political weapon.
Finally, there are the proposals for a new modern constitution to take South Arabia into independence. I should explain to the House, whose anxieties on this matter I recognise, that one of the difficulties which affects us is the kind of legacy which we received from the right hon. Member for Streatham in this case, because our responsibility under the Constitution which he sponsored is limited to approval of constitutional changes on behalf of Aden State. This is not our Constitution, it is their Constitution, and our part in it is very sharply limited.
The heart of the constitutional problem in South Arabia, as everybody admits, is how to marry the relatively advanced city of Aden, with its commercial community and trade union movement, with the much more traditional states of the hinterland. We are accepting in this Constitution a solution for dealing with this problem


under which Aden, together with the neighbouring federal capital, shall be given a special status as a capital territory.
Given the constitutional paralysis of the past, it would be unrealistic to believe that this Constitution will command universal assent, any more than it has done in the House today. We still believe, as I keep repeating, that the United Nations will have an important and constructive rôle to play in the constitutional progress towards South Arabian independence, but we have to make constitutional progress now. We have, therefore, safeguarded the position by insisting that the new Constitution shall have built-in provisions in regard to the emergence of a more broadly based Government. This is something which we, the present South Arabian Ministers and the United Nations Mission have all, in our different ways, been seeking to bring about.
One of the fundamental objections to continuing any longer with the present constitution is that it makes it legally impossible to provide any such more broadly based Government. Those who are willing to tackle the task of creating a caretaker Government will find that the new Constitution pre-empts none of their ideas. There are simple provisions which will allow the wider Government to amend the Constitution in whatever ways it thinks wisest.
I should emphasise that, in my view, the present South Arabian Ministers have been often unfairly criticised for their unwillingness to accept democratic procedures. They have in this case tried hard to meet the demands of the United Nations resolution. This Constitution—it is theirs and not ours—lays down universal franchise for both men and women. This is still a goal at which they are aiming. It is a good deal more than exists in many of the military dictatorships which have attacked them so vociferously. Here again, with the Constitution we have, I think, achieved the best balance possible between the necessity to make swift progress and the need to retain political flexibility.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Thomson: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon, but it is getting close to 10 o'clock.
Taken together, all these proposals form a basis for peaceful independence. They give the people of South Arabia, all of them—the sheiks and the trade union leaders, the Adeni merchants and the Radfan tribesmen—a chance to build together a new independent Arab nation. I do not underestimate in any way the immense difficulties that still lie in the way of achieving this. The prolonged period of internal terror and external threat has now added to it the incalculable consequences of the Arab-Israeli conflict at the other end of the Red Sea. Success in this case is certainly not something for any British Government to command.
The Government's proposals, the result of a searching and conscientious reappraisal, enable us to do everything in our power to contribute to the future of South Arabia within the framework of the policies which we have laid down. If we sought to do more in terms of a formal defence agreement, we would handicap, not help, those whom we seek to assist. If we did less, we would be failing in our obligations to people with whom we have been closely associated over a century and a half.

Mr. Thorpe: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman an important question?

Mr. Thomson: I am sorry, I am just coming up to 10 o'clock. I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.
I appeal to all those who feel deeply about these political issues and to those with strong feelings on both sides—and I know that they exist; I appeal to the political leaders inside South Arabia and to those in exile, to accept this plan as the working document for a free and self-respecting South Arabia that will take a proud place in the future among the independent Arab nations of the world.

Mr. Thorpe: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Sandys: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must decide who is to intervene before the right hon. Gentleman sits down. Mr. Thorpe.

Mr. Thorpe: Since the right hon. Gentleman still has three minutes in which,


I am sure, he can help the House with further elucidation on the matter, may I ask him this question? Accepting that the viability of the intended Federation depends upon a coalition caretaker Government between the Arab nationalists, on the one hand, and, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, the rather more feudal people in the rest of the territory, what reason has he for supposing that there is likely to be more cooperation in the future between these two differing peoples than there has been in the past?

Mr. Thomson: I hope that I have made it clear that I cannot prophesy about the future. We have very little time left, however, and we must do our duty in the time that is left and do all that we can, in co-operation with those who are willing to co-operate with us, to give South Arabia decent independence.

Mr. Heath: May I put this important question to the Minister of State? The Foreign Secretary used these words, "Her Majesty's Government will have no treaty relationship with the new State but there will be available to it the extensive assistance which we have offered to give in

the first few years of independence, including the powerful military support which I have outlined". Does the Minister of State repeat those words and adhere to them?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the V-bombers will be there as long as the Government decide, taking into account the circumstances, including the view of the Federal Government, and that the troops on the commando carrier—[Interruption.]—the Foreign Secretary did not make this plain—can be used—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must have time to answer. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. Thomson: The naval force is for six months because of the physical difficulties attaching to that. The bomber force is for as long as Her Majesty's Government consider necessary in the circumstances. The reference by my right hon. Friend to several years was related in that context to our programme of defence aid to South Arabia.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands Bill, and the Anchors and Chain Cables Bill and of the Committee of Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

Orders of the Day — ADEN, PERIM AND KURIA MURIA ISLANDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.1 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time"—

Mr. Philip Goodhart: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Gentleman, may I say that I understood that the Second Reading was to be taken formally.

Hon. Members: No.

10.2 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): The House has just finished a very full debate on the present problems and future development of South Arabia. By contrast, this Bill is a relatively simple and straightforward Measure. I should warn the House that I intend to move it in what will turn out to be a pretty dull speech.
The Bill's purpose is central to our discussion today. Though this may sometimes have been lost sight of, we have, after all, been discussing Aden on the eve of independence.
The Bill makes the necessary provision in our law so that—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot proceed with the business of the House against a background of conversation.

Mr. Rodgers: Its purpose is to make the necessary provision in our law so that the three territories of Aden, Perim and the Kuria Muria Islands will cease to be colonial territories in order that South Arabia can become independent. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that it would be right to retain responsibility for any of the islands of the area after we relinquish sovereignty over Aden. It would be contrary to the principles of independence for South Arabia for us to try to do so.
Some special interest has been shown in Perim. Perim is administratively and economically dependent on the mainland and has no viability as a separate strategic unit. It has a population of some 400 persons only, mostly fishermen. I am sure that the United Nations, which is not geared to the administration of territories indefinitely, would agree that we should not continue to have any responsibility for Perim after the independence of South Arabia and, equally, that they themselves should not accept any responsibility for the island.
The Bill does not cover the Protectorate of South Arabia or Kamaran, which is also a Protectorate, because they are not colonies. Although they are to take their place as part of an independent South Arabia, statutory provision is not necessary to bring them to independence. In due course, my right hon. Friend will advise Her Majesty to proclaim the termination of her protection over these territories. The question of statutory provision for the citizenship of people living in the territories does not arise, as they are British Protected Persons regulated by Order in Council.
Aden was acquired in 1839, and Perim in 1857. Both were administered as part of the Indian Empire until 1937, when they became colonies, and they were then administered together with Aden until 1963, when separate administrations were set up for the three territories. The Kuria Muria Islands were ceded to Queen Victoria by the Sultan of Muscat and Oman in 1854, whereafter their history


was much the same. A date for the relinquishment of sovereignty over these territories is not specified in the Bill, but my right hon. Friend informed the House today of our intention to grant independence to South Arabia on 9th January, 1968, and an Order in Council will be made at the appropriate time.
It may help the House, although this may take a little time, if I now deal briefly with the Bill, Clause by Clause, and mention its principal provisions.

Mr. Sandys: When South Arabia achieves independence, is it intended that she shall acquire sovereignty over all these islands, including Kamaran, which is a disputed territory, miles away off the coast of the Yemen, and which she will be incapable of defending? Is that the intention?

Mr. Rodgers: As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are certain problems about the precise future of these territories after independence, and Kamaran is a long way from the mainland of South Arabia. We have not yet undertaken any formal consultations with the inhabitants, which we will obviously have to do before deciding their precise destination.

Mr. Sandys: Can the hon. Gentleman make this quite clear? Have the Government taken a decision, or have they not, that these three islands, or groups of islands, Perim, Kuria Muria, and Kamaran, shall or shall not be transferred to the Federation of South Arabia on independence? Or is that still being considered?

Mr. Rodgers: This is still being considered, for the reason that I mentioned, that we must consult the population.

Mr. Sandys: Of all three?

Mr. Rodgers: Consultations must take place.

Mr. Sandys: With all three?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, in all three cases. I turn now to the Clauses of the Bill. As the House will see, Clause 1 contains the central provisions of the Bill. It provides for the relinquishment of Her Majesty's sovereignty over Aden, Perim, and the Kuria Muria Islands. This is done by providing that on the appointed

day to be fixed, as I have said, by Order in Council, these three territories will cease to form part of Her Majesty's Dominions, and that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall thereafter have no responsibility for the government of those territories.
Clause 2 and the Schedule make modifications to the British Nationality Acts. These modifications follow the pattern of the modifications which are made when colonial territories achieve independence. Subsection 1 of Clause 2 gives effect to the Schedule. The Schedule of the Bill provides for the loss of United Kingdom citizenship in certain cases.
Two conditions must be satisfied before a person can lose his United Kingdom citizenship. The first is that he must possess another citizenship by virtue of a connection with one of the three territories, or with a territory of which one of the three territories forms part at independence. This is covered by paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule. The second is that he does not fall within one of the exempted classes of persons set out in paragraph 3. These persons are those who possess United Kingdom citizenship by virtue of a close connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining British dependent territory.
I should explain that the independent State of South Arabia, of which Aden will form part, will adopt a formal citizenship law. The House may like to know that the present Federal Government intend that it shall be of a liberal kind. It will stand up to comparison with citizenship arrangements in emergent Commonwealth countries. It will make no discrimination against non-Arabs, and will automatically provide South Arabian citizenship for every person who is a British Protected Person by virtue of his connection with the Federation, and every person born in the Federation, or whose father was born in the Federation, and who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies when the law comes into force.
I want to give some examples of the way in which citizenship will work under the Federal Government's proposed citizenship law. A person who was born in Aden and is therefore a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies will acquire South Arabian citizenship by virtue of his birth, that is, by virtue of his


connection with Aden. A person born in the Federation outside Aden will equally acquire South Arabian citizenship by virtue of his birth in that territory. So far as Aden will be part of the Federation on the appointed day, such a person will also satisfy the first condition of acquiring that citizenship by virtue of his connection with the territory of which Aden forms part.
The first condition of loss of United Kingdom citizenship is positive. A person must have another citizenship before he can lose United Kingdom citizenship. The House will regard it as important that no one will become stateless by virtue of the Bill.
The second condition, as I have said, excludes certain classes of person from the effect of the Schedule. A person will not lose his United Kingdom citizenship even though he acquires South Arabian citizenship, if he or his father or his grandfather were born in the United Kingdom or in a United Kingdom dependency outside South Arabia. People in this category are covered by paragraph 3(1,a).
Other persons who have United Kingdom citizenship by virtue of their or their father's or their grandfather's connection with the United Kingdom or other dependency, will similarly not lose their United Kingdom citizenship even though they acquire South Arabian citizenship. I am setting this on record because the citizenship provisions are of the greatest importance, although I concede that they are of considerable complexity, which the House may choose to look into more closely in Committee.
Paragraph 2 of the Schedule provides that a woman cannot acquire citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of her marriage to a person who has ceased to be a United Kingdom citizen, or would have ceased to be one had he lived, by virtue of paragraph 1. This paragraph does not deprive anyone of United Kingdom citizenship. Paragraph 3(4) provides that a wife shall not lose her United Kingdom citizenship unless her husband loses his.
The effect of these two provisions is to put husbands and wives on a similar footing. It would be anomalous if a woman could obtain United Kingdom

citizenship by virtue of marriage to a man who has lost his citizenship by virtue of the Bill. Nevertheless, if she has already acquired United Kingdom citizenship she will not lose her citizenship unless she herself acquires new citizenship and comes within paragraph 1, which I have already mentioned. The point here is that all she loses under paragraph 2 is the right to acquire citizenship and not United Kingdom citizenship itself if it has already been acquired.
Sub-paragraph (3) contains a further exception. A person who is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or a remaining British dependency would retain his British status. We have thought it right to include this provison, so that persons who have settled, for example, in the United Kingdom should not lose their United Kingdom citizenship even though they will by that point possess a specified citizenship in South Arabia.
I have been dealing with the Schedule, which contains complicated but most important provision for those affected, and I now return to the Bill. Clause 2(2) deals with a matter which is incidental to the main purpose of the Bill, and its inclusion might be regarded as a tidying-up operation. When the title of Governor was changed to that of High Commissioner in 1963 some doubt arose as to whether the High Commissioner was covered by the British Nationality Act of 1948 in relation to the Protectorate of South Arabia. The purpose of subsection (2) is therefore to put beyond doubt the validity of certain registrations and naturalisations made by the High Commissioner since 1963. Subsection (3) extends the nationality provisions as part of the law of the associated States in the West Indies, in accordance with the general arrangements governing our relations with the West Indies.
Clause 3 gives power to modify by Order in Council provisions of the British Parliament affecting matters other than nationality in consequence of the relinquishment of sovereignty over the three territories. A provision of this kind is usual where colonial territories cease to be such, and any Orders under the Clause will, by virtue of Clause 6(2), be subject to annulment by Resolution of either House.
Clause 4 gives the Minister of Overseas Development power to make Regulations


to give effect to arrangements made in connection with the winding-up of the Aden Widows and Orphans Pensions Fund. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) drew attention to this in the debate. Under these arrangements, the United Kingdom will have an obligation to pay certain persons now paid from the Fund and a sum will be transferred from the Fund to the United Kingdom Government to meet the cost.
On another important matter with which the House will be properly concerned, the interests of British and other civil servants in South Arabia will be safeguarded. When it becomes independent, the designated expatriate officers, who are mostly British civil servants, will be eligible to retire with compensation. The non-designated officers, who are mainly non-British, are entitled to draw pensions and gratuity earned in respect of their service with, in certain cases, enhanced benefits. Thus, public service in South Arabia will follow the normal pattern of emergent territories and no designated or non-designated expatriate officer will be required to serve after independence unless he so desires.
Clause 5 deals with pending appeals to Her Majesty in Council. At present, appeals lie from the Aden Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa and thence to the Privy Council. In certain cases, they may also lie from the Federal High Court to the Privy Council. The Clause gives power to make Orders in Council providing for the continuance and disposal of pending appeals after independence by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and for their abatement and expedition.
Clause 6 contains the supplementary provisions as to Orders in Council to which I have already referred. Clause 7 contains certain provisions for interpretation which are straightforward. Clause 8 covers Northern Ireland. Clause 9 gives the short title.
Despite some of the complications of nationality which I mentioned, this is essentially a simple and straightforward Bill and I hope that I have given the House a sufficient description of its contents without too much detail. The Leader of the Opposition made it clear that the Opposition do not intend to divide on the Bill. No doubt there will

be a good deal of discussion in Committee. I hope, therefore, that I may commend the Bill to the House, with the wish that it will go forward with the blessing of both sides.

Sir Douglas Glover: What about Kamaran? The hon. Gentleman said that no decision had been taken about this island. Does this mean that the inhabitants will be able to choose one of three courses—to join the Yemen, to remain part of the Federation, or to remain under the British Crown? What choice will they have?

Mr. Rodgers: I think I said that we had not yet consulted the inhabitants and it is therefore too soon now to discuss possible options.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) whom I seemed to be cutting out of a debate in which he is entitled to take part. I had wrongly thought that the Second Reading of this Bill was to be taken formally. Having said that, perhaps I should warn the House that this should not be a repetition of the previous debate. This is the Second Reading debate on a specific Bill.

10.21 p.m.

Lord Balniel: The whole House will be indebted to the Under-Secretary for his careful and thorough explanation of the Bill and, in particular, the citizens of the various States of the South Arabian Federation will be grateful to him for his explanation of the complex nationality problems which arise. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the Bill, which makes provision for the independence of Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands, but while I welcome the intrinsic merits of the Bill, I must express my sense of regret about its Parliamentary handling.
For many months—indeed, ever since the Government suspended the Constitution of Aden and reverted to direct colonial rule—my hon. Friends and I have pressed for a statement of policy. It seemed to us that constitutional policy over a period of many months had been allowed to drift on events. If one takes only recent weeks, it was in the emergency debate of 10th April—when you, Mr. Speaker, agreed to interrupt the


normal proceedings of the House—that we asked the Foreign Secretary for an explanation of his policy. At that time the right hon. Gentleman said that he required more time before he could give such an explanation.
When Sir Humphrey Trevelyan was appointed High Commissioner on 11th May, we asked for a statement of policy, but again the Foreign Secretary asked for more time. In the debate on the Middle East on 30th May—indeed, at almost every Question Time and in our many foreign affairs debates—we asked for a statement of policy from the Foreign Secretary. Now, after this long delay—in which drift appears to have been the sole consistent policy—in which there has been a dramatic increase in the casualty rate and death roll, the Government make their statement of policy. And on the very same day they ask us to pass this Measure which makes provision for the independence of Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands.
Only last week we asked that there should be a pause of, perhaps, two days in which we could consider the implications of the very far-ranging statement of policy. Yet for some petty, inexplicable and unexplained reason, this has not been acceptable to the Government. It is all the more inexplicable when one considers how complex is the advance of this Colony towards independence. For example, the island of Perim, which is being granted its independence under the Bill, is situated in an area of immense strategic significance, right at the entrance to the Red Sea. If I understand the situation aright, the island of Perim is not inside the Federation of South Arabia.
There is the additional complication that Aden is the headquarters of the Commander in Chief, Middle East, who has under his control something like 20,000 troops situated in Aden and throughout the Persian Gulf. Other complexities arise because of the treaties we have with the Federation of South Arabia, the additional treaties we have with those States in South Arabia which are not Members of the Federation and the treaties we have with the territories of the Persian Gulf. Added to the complexity of the situation is the fact that, unlike most Colonies at this stage in their ad-

vance towards independence, in these final months before independence the Colony of Aden is not under a constitution of democratic rule.
When hon. Members came into office the Constitution was in operation, but in September, 1966—and I hasten to say that I make no criticism of this at all—because of mounting terrorism, the Constitution was suspended by the Government of the day. During this period of about two years there has been almost complete stagnation in the political and constitutional spheres. For instance, the constitutional conference that was called for in March, 1965, by the then Colonial Secretary, the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, never took place. The Commission that he appointed in May, 1965, to consider constitutional advance never met, and never undertook its task. There have been other conferences. A conference was summoned for December, 1965, and another conference was summoned for August, 1966, to which the United Nations was invited to send observers. Neither of those conferences for constitutional advance ever took place.
It was during this time that the Hone-Bell constitutional proposals were published—in January, 1966—and remained unimplemented. It is only today, for the first time, that we hear that the Government are proposing to lead Aden forward to independence on the Hone-Bell proposals. All these matters—the basis of election, the future arrangements for the treaties with the States which are not inside the Federation, the future relationship of Aden with the new independent South Arabian Federation—have remained untested until today.
In all seriousness, I cannot see that the interests of the House or of the people living in that area are well served by the Government insisting on having this debate on the very day on which they have made a major statement of policy which, I must frankly say, involves a total reversal in many respects of the previous policy. We are not well served by having this debate on the same day as the statement of policy is announced. None the less, we welcome the decision announced today to grant independence to Aden on 9th January, 1968.
But to grant independence and freedom to the territory without at the same time


being sure of its security would have been a most cynical farce. We therefore also welcome today's announcement that this move towards independence will be accompanied by a complete reversal of defence policy there—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the noble Lord will help me. This is becoming suspiciously like a continuation of the previous debate. I hope that he will refer to the Bill.

Lord Balniel: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I shall most certainly try to comply with your Ruling, but we would have found it extremely difficult to lend our support to a Bill on constitutional independence had it not been for the policy announced today on the subject of defence. It is surely with great difficulty that one can debate the issue of freedom if the issue of freedom is not backed up by defence policies that make it a reality. I think that we will find ourselves in great difficulty if we cannot refer to the two aspects of independence—constitutional independence and independence from external aggression.

Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord is quite right, and I am in as great a difficulty as he is. I notice that hon. and right hon. Members who have already spoken are seeking to catch my eye in this debate, but I think it would not be in order for them to make the same speeches as they made in the last debate.

Lord Balniel: I shall try to comply with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Had it not been for this dramatic reversal of policy, we of the Opposition would have found it extremely difficult to support this Bill. Without referring in any detail to the question of defence, so far as I understand the position the decision of the Government is to implement an agreement which was reached as long ago as 1964 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). That agreement was to advance towards independence in 1968 and to couple independence with a defence agreement. It is this which has been the source of controversy between us in the past and on which so much scorn has been poured by hon. Members in the past. With this Bill and the statement of policy today, they are implementing the substance, if not the formality, of the agreement of 1964.
I wish to ask some questions about the Bill. The first is concerned with internal security and the situation in Aden during the period leading up to independence. Some time ago my right hon. Friend urged as a preparatory step that the internal security of Aden should be handed over to the Federal Government. The Secretary of State, on 11th May, rejected this proposal, saying that it would be a mistake to hand over responsibility for internal security to those who would commit us while our forces are there. I read in the newspapers today that four Aden Ministers of the Federal Supreme Council have specifically requested of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan that the internal security of Aden Colony should be handed over to the Federal security troops. Can the Government announce their decision on this request? Is it actually necessary for British troops during this intermediate period to continue to maintain internal security in those areas where no Europeans live?
I also refer to the question which was asked by an hon. Friend concerning Kamaran. This has been a British territory since 1915 and it has been ruled from Aden. May we have an indication whether it is the intention of the Government that it should become part of the South Arabian Federation? Geographically it does not lend itself to be an integral part of an independent South Arabian Federation. Information about the future of this island would be of interest.
Could the Government give some information about the future of Perim? It has a situation of immense strategic significance which is fully as important as Sharm el Sheikh. It lies right at the entrance of the Red Sea. One might consider whether there is not a strong argument for internationalising this island which has a strategic significance not only to the immediate area but to all countries to the north of the Red Sea. The possibility of internationalising the island should be considered very carefully by the Government.
My final question concerns the treaties with those States which are not members of the Federation. The House will know that in the eastern provinces there are three States, Kathairi, Namra and Qu'Aiti, which are not members of the


Federation, and the Upper Yafa Sultanate on the borders of Yemen. I understand that in the past when there has been no defence backing of the Federation, there have been reasons which have led these States to remain outside. We hope that they will join the Federation. I ask the Government, what is the future of the treaties which we have with these States? In the past they have stated that they will abrogate the treaties. Does that remain the situation?
This is a great step forward in the life of those living in the South Arabian Federation. We wish them well under the new Constitution. We hope that it will contribute to peace and stability in the area. I do not think it would be right to allow this occasion to pass without paying tribute to those who have supported the Federal Government in the very difficult years and months which have preceded the introduction of this Bill. It is right that we should pay tribute to the men of great courage who have served with the Federal Government in various capacities. Certainly, in the British House of Commons it would not he right if we did not pay a most sincere tribute to the British people who have served in the civil administration and among our troops in South Arabia. They have indeed served this country very well, and I think that on this occasion we should pay full and sincere tribute to what they have done.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I cordially agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) in what he said about the timing of this Bill. It is most unfortunate that we should not have had an opportunity of considering Government policy before the Bill itself was rushed into the House. It is a very grave misfortune that the debate should have taken place today, the very day when the Foreign Secretary is going to New York. I hope he will have an opportunity not only of discussing the war in the Middle East but also of meeting the Secretary-General and the Special Mission on Aden and other United Nations officials and delegates concerned with the future of Aden.
The noble Lord said that he was prepared to vote for this Bill—or, rather, that he would not vote against it—only because he agreed so cordially with the

statement which the Foreign Secretary made. I am in exactly the same position in reverse. I am not prepared to support this Bill because I violently disagree with almost everything that the Secretary of State said. I take the view that his statement is probably a fatal blow to the hope of a United Nations involvement in the future of Aden. Indeed, if my right hon. Friend who wound up the earlier debate had not been a close personal friend I would have said that he treated not only the House but myself with contempt in not dealing with, and in refusing to deal with, but skating round the position of the Special Mission on Aden.
I pressed him to say whether it was not a fact that whereas we had failed the United Nations had succeeded in making contact with F.L.O.S.Y., and that a meeting was about to take place when the war in the Middle East broke out, and that the only reason why the F.L.O.S.Y. representatives did not go to New York was that after their meeting in Algiers—surely the Foreign Secretary must have known this: I heard about it within 24 hours in New York—they went back to Cairo, war broke out, and there were no aeroplanes travelling between Cairo and New York. It was not unreasonable, in view of that situation in Egypt, that should be some delay, logistical delay rather political delay, in getting those delegates to the United Nations. The fact is that we failed to make contact with F.L.O.S.Y., and the United Nations had succeeded.
I am against this Bill because it appears to me to shut the door on United Nations participation, and makes it impossible for the Special Mission on Aden to do its work; and it leaves us handling a situation which, I believe, it is impossible for the British Government to handle honourably on their own. Unlike the noble Lord, I see this Bill opening the door, not to a peaceful, prosperous, free Federation of South Arabia, but to bloody chaos, violence and terrorism on an ever-increasing scale, following the pattern of measures the Government have followed to try to deal with emergencies in Kenya, Cyprus, and so many other British Colonies, which the British Government have plunged unnecessarily into violence and bloodshed ending in a humiliating British withdrawal.
I think the premises on which this Bill is based are all entirely wrong. We have heard the Foreign Secretary and the Minister and, by implication, the Under-Secretary of State making a resounding case for our withdrawing our British military presence and base in Aden and South Arabia, when we are building up in the Persian Gulf, and when the war in the Middle East has proved conclusively the futility of persisting in 1967 in maintaining Imperial postures on other continents. I think that attempts to maintain a British military presence in the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean and the Far East are incompatible with the giving of true independence to South Arabia and Aden.
I started by saying that I deeply regretted the timetable of the debate and the Bill. I regret it not only because it treats the United Nations with contempt but because it gives us no time to know what the reactions of the United Nations will be to the Foreign Secretary's speech. He has now gone to New York. His talks with the Secretary-General and with the leaders of other delegations, including Arab delegations, may cause him to want to reconsider some of the ill-judged, ill-considered and hasty things he said in his speech today. But he will have no opportunity to do anything about it because this Bill will have been passed. Surely we could have had two or three days to see what the reaction of the United Nations and people in South Arabia would be.
The provisions my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was talking about in relation to internal security make it certain that this Colony will follow the pattern of Cyprus and so many others, where a liberation struggle deteriorated into greater and greater violence until finally we had to withdraw. It has said goodbye to any possible hope of contact with F.L.O.S.Y. and the nationalist organisations. How can the Government expect, after these measures, any Arab nationalist to wish to speak to the British Government again?
There is only one statement by the hon. Member for Hertford with which I agreed, and that is the possibility that the island of Perim might be internationalised on the ground that it occupies a similar position in the Red Sea to that of Sharm el Sheik on the

approaches to the Gulf of Aqaba. I fear that, in the atmosphere and conditions which will have been created by the debate earlier and by this Bill, it is unlikely that the United Nations will wish to accept a responsbility of this kind.
It had always been my hope that, whatever the difficulties of the Special Mission on Aden, whatever inadequacies some hon. Members opposite might have seen in its efforts and in the personalities chosen for it by the United Nations, it would be the first stage of growing United Nations involvment in the future of Aden and the South Arabian Federation. It might have been that the next stage would have been the appointment of a personal representative of the Secretary-General and the possibility of a United Nations military presence. There might have been a large United Nations involvment during the time of our withdrawal. In these conditions, the suggestion of internationalising Perim might have been reasonable. The United Nations might have been able to take the island over. But I think that that possibility has now utterly disappeared.
It is not my practice and never has been during my 20 years' membership of this House to filibuster and keep the House up at night with unnecessary speeches, but this is a matter of very great importance which involves not only the future of British troops and civilians in Aden, who are now to be faced with the prospect of a long and dishonourable period of bloodshed and violence. It also destroys our position at the United Nations. Like my right hon. Friend, I have always believed that British foreign policy in modern conditions must be based on loyal membership of the United Nations.
Clause 6 of the Bill has a provision for Orders in Council under Clauses 3 and 5 to be revoked by subsequent Orders in Council. Does this mean that if the Government, on the return of the Foreign Secretary from New York or for other reasons, relent and decide to change their policy, the timetable can be altered and the arrangements which my hon. Friend has announced can be radically changed?
If that were so, I should feel a little less unhappy about the Bill. Nevertheless, it is my hope that some of my hon. Friends or perhaps the Liberal Party, whose


leader made a powerful attack earlier on the Foreign Secretary's statement, will provide the House with an opportunity to divide against the Bill. If they do so, I shall certainly vote against it.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I will not detain the House for very long because I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) said. I hope that prior to the closure of the debate we will find out whether there is sufficient support to take the line which he has indicated.
I should like to refer only to Clause 1 in which we are being asked to give power to Her Majesty in Council in effect to give up sovereignty in regard to three territories of rather different categories. Upon the passage of that Order in Council we will cease to have any responsibility for the government of those territories.
The reason that such a Bill is necessary is, of course, because at the moment we exercise complete sovereignty over these territories. Although at the moment Aden is part of the South Arabian Federation, and I speak subject to correction, it has the legal status of a Crown Colony.
The Under-Secretary of State was careful to say that there would be consultation with those people who were involved as to the future status they wished to have and the future political arrangement they would wish to enter into. What I want to know is what sort of consultation will take place. The hon. Gentleman is right if he follows the precedents. In those territories in respect of which we have exercised sovereignty we have always been careful to consult them. It is that reason which prompted Mr. Macmillan, when he was Prime Minister, to appoint the Monckton Commission to find out the views of the people living in those territories about the future of the Federation. It was for that reason that we had a referendum in Nigeria before independence to see whether the territory which was formerly the British Cameroons wished to remain with the future Nigerian Federation or to federate with what was then the French Cameroons. The territory decided in favour of the latter. The Ashanti were consulted as to whether they wished to join the Gold Coast prior

to that country becoming Ghana, and likewise, when there was criticism of the Caribbean Federation the constituent territories were again consulted upon whether they wished the Federation to be continued or dissolved.
It is true to say that in that case elections took place after independence, but none the less the principle obtains that in territories for which we have responbility, or had responsibility recently, every effort was made to consult the people living in them.
What we have not had from the Under-Secretary of State, and it is a staggering omission, is what form of consultation there will be. We know what particular value was attached to the views of one constituent territory, namely, Aden, when after they had had elections, the Chief Minister, because he was opposed to the federal commitment of Aden to being part of South Arabia, was sacked from office, as a result of which he is now living in exile. I am not certain whether this is going to constitute the full extent of the consultation which this territory will enjoy after we cease to hold sovereignty over it.
We are told that there will be an Order in Council against which, presumably, we cannot put down any Prayer in this House. I speak subject to correction on that and perhaps we can hear from the Government. It will be on the appointed day—
On such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint (in this Act referred to as "the Appointed day") …
that these matters will take place. Has the Under-Secretary of State any idea what particular date is in mind?
Might it, for example, be 9th January, 1968? To me the staggering thing is that during this debate the Under-Secretary has told us that the people in Aden will be most carefully consulted as to what future status they want, whereas the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State earlier today, in another debate, told us that they will become part of an independent Southern Arabian Federation on 9th January 1968.

Mr. William Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. When I referred to consultation, it was in answer to Questions about the islands. It is in the case of the islands that we


intend to have some form of consultation before a final decision is made.

Mr. Thorpe: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman since that makes the position worse, very much worse. He will correct me if I do him an injustice, but he is saying that there will be no further consultation with Aden. Is that correct? The moment will come when Her Majesty will, by Order in Council, relinquish sovereignty over this territory, and we shall have no further responsibility for the government of it.
We are being asked to give the Government a blank cheque to give up sovereignty when they want, and there is to be no further consultation with the people who are in a Crown Colony, in respect of whom we have, therefore, a particular fiduciary relationship. Without entering upon the merits of the previous debate, it is only fair to say that there are many people in Aden with views as to what they want to do upon independence, and there are many who take the view that they do not want to join the Southern Arabian Federation. Will they be given any opportunity to express that view, or are they to be dragooned into that Federation, in the same way as the Government hope to dragoon us into voting for this Bill, without giving people in the Colony any further opportunity of debating their future, without giving this House any further opportunity of debating their future?
If so it must be the first time in a long and honourable history of liquidating a colonial empire in which we deliberately give independence to a territory which is a Crown Colony in order that we may force them into a federal structure to which many of its constituent inhabitants are violently opposed. It would be interesting to know the doctrine which applied in the case of the Ashanti, the Cameroons, the Caribbean, Central Africa, the Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and to know whether it is to apply to Aden, or whether it is in a particular category, as the Government believe that they know what is best, and do not think it necessary to consult local opinion.
Accepting, as we do, that the expressed opinion of the Chief Minister, elected on a constitutional basis of universal suffrage

in Aden in 1959, was opposed to joining the Federation, and that therefore, for that and other reasons, he was dismissed from office, and is now in exile, I do not believe that the Government are giving adequate consultation—I do them an injustice, I paid them too great a tribute, because the Under-Secretary has said that there will be no consultation.
To ask us to relinquish sovereignty over a territory which is a Crown Colony in order that it may be pushed into a federal structure to which many people in the Colony are opposed, and to which many Members of this House are opposed, because we think that it is unworkable as at least three of the other federations which have broken up in the last five years, seems to be an unwarrantable assertion of power by this House, and therefore I think that this is a very bad Bill indeed.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: We are all grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the detailed information which he has given about the contents of the Bill. His preoccupation with detail should not remove from our minds that in the long history of decolonisation this must be one of the most extraordinary independence Bills ever introduced into the House of Commons, not so much because of the contents of the Bill, but because of the time at which it has been introduced. I agree with the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) and my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) in their strictures on the Government for introducing the Bill at this moment in time.
Ministers have said in the preceding debate, and the Under-Secretary said in introducing the Bill, that we have very little time left. The fact that we have very little time left is entirely a matter of the Government's choosing. There is no reason why the independence date has to be set at 9th January. It could equally well be 9th June next year. There is no reason why the Bill has to be introduced tonight. It could well have been introduced in two, three or four weeks' time and still receive Royal Assent before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
The timing of the Bill seems to me to be peculiarly odd, because as a result


of the Israeli-Arab war and the concussion that the whole Arab world, of which Aden is a part, has suffered, we have no idea what threat is posed to Aden by its neighbours. Indeed, we have no real idea what our lasting interest in Aden will be.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) expressed the belief earlier today that, as a result of the Israeli conflict and the debacle that Egypt has suffered, Nasser would be more intent on prosecuting his assault on Aden and that he would redouble his efforts to subvert the Government which we support and to which, in the Bill, we are giving independence. My right hon. Friend is probably right.
On the other hand, another possibility is that within the next week or two President Nasser will disappear completely from the scene. We have had this afternoon's debate and the introduction of the Bill at the one moment in time when we have no idea whatever what the future threat to Aden will be.
We have made a very generous offer to Aden, but we have no idea whether it will be sufficient to meet the threat or whether it will be immensely excessive. It will cost us £60 million over the next three years. It may be that if the United Arab Republic withdraws, none of this money, or only very little of it, will be needed in the regular maintenance of the Adeni Government. At this moment, we do not know. At the same time, we do not know what our lasting interests in Aden will be.
If President Nasser continues to pursue the subversion of Aden, so long as the southern shores of the Persian Gulf remain in friendly hands and the oil continues to flow, which have obviously an important interest in seeing that the Government in Aden is not subverted and that there are peace, stability and prosperity in that land. If, in fact, our Arab relationships are so shaken, and the whole structure of the relationships becomes such that we have no longer any friends in the Persian Gulf, then our interest in maintaining law and order is necessarily different. Oil is already cut off, and if this loss to our companies becomes permanent, then our interest in the stability of the Federal Government is, to put it mildly, reduced.
This is the one moment in time when we have no idea of what the situation is going to be. We may have, in three, or four or five weeks' time, but to use this day as the occasion when Her Majesty's Government announce their intentions for the next three years is something which strikes me as very odd indeed. My noble Friend the Member for Hertford referred to the use of the Federal troops in Aden for the maintenance of law and order during the interim period before independence and I would most certainly agree that there is every reason, whatever may be the situation in the Arab world, that we should withdraw all British troops as quickly as possible from the entirely Arab areas of Crater and Sheikh Othman. In the normal course of security duties they are subject to attack by terrorists, but I perfectly well understand the reluctance of the Government to hand over the responsibility for internal security in those areas of Aden to the Federal forces.
On the one hand, there are doubts about the efficiency of those forces and the loyalty of the soldiers and yet, technically, they should have received sufficient training in a few weeks' time to enable them efficiently to undertake their work. It is an extremely important decision to hand over responsibility for any area unless one is completely sure of what the troops to whom one is handing over that responsibility are likely to do; but here, we have a different situation.
I would suggest that the immense sums which we intend to lavish—yes, lavish—on Aden in the next three years are such that we have a right to see that the Federal forces do a proper job in maintaining law and order in the Crater and Sheikh Othman districts. If, in the event, the situation gets out of hand and those forces allow these areas to become a hotbed for saboteurs and allow them to become nests of terrorism with attacks on any British personnel, then Her Majesty's Government should reduce the subsidies to which the Government have committed us in the next three years. We intend to put immense sums in their pockets. We think that they will be efficient. Then let us see that they are efficient in the next few months. If they are not, the amount of money which we intend to give them can be reduced.
I turn now to two very small groups which have been associated with Aden. One is the Jewish community there, which will have to leave before independence is granted. The Jews number less than 200, and they are not a particularly wealthy community. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen that the Aden mobs, in their jolly fashion, have hacked to death one elderly Jew and set on fire a number of Jewish-owned shops. Clearly, the entire Jewish community will have to be removed from Aden, or not a single one will survive independence. They will have to be resettled in Israel, and I do not see why the members of the community should have to bear the entire cost themselves. As we are leaving them in an impossible position, I do not see why we or the Aden population as a whole should not make some contribution to their resettlement in Israel. To take their places, perhaps a couple of hundred Arab refugees might be brought from Israel to Aden.
I referred just now to one small group, but the second should be described more correctly as an individual. He is the late High Commissioner in Aden, Sir Richard Turnbull. In the course of this afternoon's debate, unfortunately, there was not a single reference by Ministers to the distinguished service which he performed while he was High Commissioner. On a day in which the Government have accepted virtually all the views which he put forward over the last few months, and when his stewardship has been vindicated completely, a word of thanks for his service might perhaps have been forthcoming from Ministers. However, that would he too much to expect, and one can only be grateful that they have accepted his views and assured Aden of a rather better future than seemed probable yesterday.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): I am quite sure that the principle of the Bill is right, and that independence should come to Aden. The Conservative Government pledged themselves to independence for Aden, but they did it in a context of a defence guarantee to ensure that, when independence came, it was secure. Until this afternoon, there was no evidence that that defence context would be provided for the independence

of Aden, and I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies that it has come.
While agreeing with the principle of the Bill, however, I am bound to say that the timing of it is most unfortunate. First of all, one can rightly protest about the timing of the Bill in the House of Commons. As was said earlier by one of my hon. Friends, it is treating the House with contempt to make a statement on Government policy and, within a matter of minutes, ask the House to pass the Bill which arises from that policy. The House of Commons could have been vouchsafed at least a few more days in which to consider the matter.
What was the rush? The policy has been under consideration for a very long time now. It could have been considered a little longer, and the House could have been given another 48 hours, which was perhaps all that was necessary, instead of having to talk off the cuff this evening.
I should also like to advert to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. He asked about consultations, and I understood from the Minister of State that there are to be consultations of some still undefined character with the people of the smaller territories—specifically Perim and the Kuria Muria Islands.
I doubt if there are very many people to be consulted, but certainly there are some, and I should like the Minister to say whether, in the event of the people who live on the island of Perim deciding that they would prefer to retain the British connection, he is then prepared to come to the House of Commons and say, "I am sorry—we shall not need to give independence, after all, to Perim because they prefer to stay the way they are". Will he say what consultations he has had with the people who live there, what consultations he is going to have, and what notice he will take of their wishes when he has heard them, if he does?
I turn now to the appointed day referred to in Clause 1. We are still a little in the dark as to what precisely that appointed day is to be. Is it to be 9th January of next year? If so, I think one is entitled to ask why that particular date? The only information given to the House this afternoon was that it


would have to be 9th January because until 9th January it was the Feast of Ramadan, but I am sure the Minister can give us a better explanation than that.
I should like the date to be not defined in such precise language, and for this Bill not to come into operation until the independence of South Arabia has been internationally secured, and until public order has been secured within the Aden territory. But we are given no evidence that these two things are to be achieved at all. On the contrary, there will be independence—or at least relinquishment of sovereignty—on some arbitrary date irrespective of whether Aden is under attack, whether it is threatened, or whether there is public order or no public order.
I really think the Government should indicate that they intend not to relinquish power until there is clearly public order and clearly a diminution of the external threat to the independence of the Federation which they wish to make independent.
I turn now to one particular exception within the Bill which, when it comes to the Committee stage, I hope it will be possible for us to amend. Specifically, I refer to Perim. There are many reasons why Perim is entitled to separate treatment, and the first is that it is not an essential part of the Federation at all. There is no reason, political, historic or even geographical why it should be wrapped up in the same package deal as Aden and the Kuria Muria Islands.
This small island is, by any measure, of major strategic importance. If the Minister doubts it, let him recall that the Soviet Union is reported, at least, to have been establishing submarine pens not so many miles from the island, and if the Soviet Union feels that to be apropriate in the territory of Yemen, is it not evident that this southern part of the Red Sea is of major strategic significance? This island lies right in the jaws of the Red Sea. At that point the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb are barely 30 miles wide—the width of the English Channel. Can we imagine, if there were to be a small island five miles square in the middle of the English Channel on an international waterway, that it would be considered to have no strategic significance?
I think the Minister must recognise, on the facts of geography alone, that this is potentially a point of major strategic significance in the Middle East, commanding the Straits. That is precisely why our ancestors, perhaps a little more far-sighted than we are, took over command of Perim in the first place. I quote here from Mr. C. Johnston's history of the area, which is the most authoritative one the House of Commons' Library was able to lay its hands on. In describing the annexation Of Perim by Britain in 1856 he says:
The initiative was taken, not, as picturesque tradition has it, in order to forestall by a few hours a French occupation, but on a cool assessment of its strategic value, and by a clear perception in Whitehall of how this would be increased if the current plans for the Suez Canal were realised, as they came to be some years later.
There was no doubt then in the mind of the British Government that this was of major strategic significance.
The Minister may say that Perim is a small place, and is not really viable. I have looked up some of the details of Perim, and it is not such a light and disposable matter. It is a small but considerable place—so is Gibraltar—5½ square miles in size. It has a considerable harbour, described in most of the texts that I have found as an excellent one, with an entrance 868 yards wide, and with deep water for most ships of heavy tonnage. It contains two lighthouses, of some importance, surely, for those who wish to navigate through these difficult waters. It contains a small airfield. I should have thought that this was of some significance at the southern extremity of the Red Sea.
It has a condensing plant to provide water for the British and Adeni Administration who have occasionally lived there over recent years, and I would like the Minister to confirm that at some stage the B.B.C. had in Perim a radio broadcasting system in the Arabic language. I am glad to see from the Minister's nod that he confirms this. With the Middle East inflamed as it has been, this seems an extraordinary time to throw away the Arabic language broadcasting station which the B.B.C. operated in Perim.
Those are some of the reasons why the Government might think it wise to think again about Perim, but I do not


wish to see, and I do not think anyone does, the island retained as one more of the long chain of British bastions. I accept the Government's case that the time has come when, in areas of this kind, it is far better if we operate within the context of international organisations, and in particular the United Nations. I am sure that I shall carry the Minister and most of his hon. Friends with me when I suggest that the best solution for Perim is for the Government to remove it from the Bill, as we shall seek to do in Committee, and offer it to the United Nations as a trust territory.
I believe that the United Nations could establish there a small peace-keeping force, and if there is a peace-keeping force it must have a physical territory over which the United Nations has sovereign control. If the evidence of Sinai showed anything, it was that the United Nations should not find itself in the position that it could be ordered to leave because it was on somebody else's territory. There should, therefore, be a new beginning for the United Nations to establish a presence on the island of Perim at the southern extremity of the Red Sea.
Let us consider the advantages. First, there would be a United Nations presence guaranteeing freedom of navigation through the narrow entrance to the Red Sea. I am sure that after seeing what has happened in Suez, and in Aqaba, the Minister would wish to see free navigation established at that point under international control.
Secondly, we do not know what the future holds for Somalia or for the Aden Federation. It is difficult to see into the distant future. No man can be certain that the next generation will not be controlled by elements which wish to prevent free passage through the straits of Bab-le-Mandeb. Here again, a United Nations presence could guarantee that freedom of navigation which we all seek to achieve.
Is the Minister not in danger of throwing away a unique opportunity to establish here, at the southern end of the Red Sea, a United Nations presence? It is not sufficient for him to say, as the Minister admitted at the beginning, that the United Nations might not want it;

let us ask and find out. Here is an alternative for the island of Perim. The Bill as a whole will have the support of the House, but the Minister would be wise to think again about this island in the general context.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. George Thomson: I will try to answer the many interesting points that have been raised during this brief debate. First, the noble Lord the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) has chided the Government for having greatly delayed the constitutional progress of South Arabia and Aden—and now he complains that we are rushing the House unduly. He complained in particular that the Hone-Bell Report was now 18 months old and that it was only now that Her Majesty's Government had got round to doing anything about constitutional reform in South Arabia. The facts are that ever since the conference in the summer of 1964—presided over by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)—we have been trying to carry the constitutional progress of South Arabia forward.
As the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, we met again and again with frustration in this process because of the unwillingness of various political groups to come round the table and co-operate in constitutional progress. Then the situation gradually deteriorated—I do not want to go into the reasons at this stage—and Aden in particular and to some extent some of the other parts of the Federation were overtaken by very violent terrorism. This is the reason for the lack of constitutional agreement and progress, and what we are now engaged in is admittedly second-best. I give this freely to the Leader of the Liberal Party.
We are engaged in carrying through the best constitutional reforms we can at this stage with those who are willing to co-operate, in the hope that we can still get, through the United Nations or in other ways, a wider involvement and, in the end, the basis of a more representative Government. Responsibility for the delays in implementing the Hone-Bell Report cannot fairly be laid at the door of the British Government.
As I explained earlier, our participation in this constitution-making for South Arabia is narrowly confined to saying "Yea" or "Nay" on behalf of the Aden


State which, as the Leader of the Liberal Party pointed out, is a Crown Colony. The Constitution is a federal Constitution. We did not participate in its drafting or making, and the Hone-Bell constitutional advisers were advisers to the Federal Government. They were hired and employed by them, and reported to them. The first sight I had of the present Constitution was when I travelled to Aden in March of this year. It is only in the last month or two that we have had from the Federal Government in South Arabia their draft Constitution, which we described to the House this afternoon.
The noble Lord also asked about internal security, and this point was also raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). I said in the earlier debate that the High Commissioner is actively discussing now with the South Arabia Government exactly how the Federal forces can be phased into internal security operations in Aden so as to get experience on the ground before independence. Clearly, the areas inhabited mainly by Arabs rather than by Europeans will lend themselves to this.
There are some practical difficulties about command structure, because it is certainly our view that we have to preserve the final responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to the House so long as Aden remains a Crown Colony. There are also some practical problems about training the Federal forces and it will be a month or two before they are ready to do this. Discussions are going on now and we certainly have it much in mind—

Mr. Thorpe: Accepting the right hon. Gentleman's hope that the House will be finally consulted, why will an Order in Council under Clause 3 or 5 be subject to some Parliamentary control—either annulment or delay; that is, Clause 6—whereas Clause 1, which deals with the major power of relinquishing sovereignty, is not stated to be in the same category? Is it suggested that that will not therefore be subject to Parliamentary control?

Mr. Thomson: I must check that, so that I do not mislead the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that all these Orders are subject to the scrutiny of the House, but, if I am wrong, I will inform him.
The noble Lord asked me about the treaties. On 31st December, last year, we gave notice to all the States with whom we are in treaty relation—both in the Federation and in the other States which he mentioned—of our intention to terminate those treaties by 1st January next year.
There is some misunderstanding of the problem. De-colonisation in Southern Arabia is not the process to which we are accustomed in Africa and other continents. The States of South Arabia, being in treaty relationship, are much more similar to the independent Gulf Sheikdoms which have treaty relationships with the British Government than to the kind of protectorates with which we were more familiar during the processes of independence in Africa. That is why these States do not come into the Bill, which deals only with the Crown Colonies over which we have direct sovereignty.
I want to take up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) and to try to persuade him that he should not feel so strongly against the Bill. I am sorry that he and I are at cross-purposes about the relationship of my right hon. Friend's announcement today with the work of the United Nations Mission, as there is nothing of substance to be at cross-purposes about. I said that we hope that the Mission will carry on and that the United Nations will be able to play a crucial and constructive rôle both before and after independence.
Certainly, with regard to the approaches to F.L.O.S.Y., the Mission and we are entirely at one. We both wish to see the contacts established and it was our understanding that F.L.O.S.Y. had undertaken to travel to New York to meet the Mission. Lord Caradon, our representative at the U.N., also expected to have the opportunity of contacting the F.L.O.S.Y. leaders at that time, but, as the House knows, F.L.O.S.Y. did not arrive in New York because of the outbreak of war in the Middle East.
I am told that there was a delay of 10 days before the war broke out, during which the Mission waited for F.L.O.S.Y. to contact them, but, as we have found in the past, waiting for F.L.O.S.Y. is one of the experiences which one has to undergo in trying to produce progress on South Arabia.
I should, perhaps, mention another idea we had, and this demonstrates our desire to see the Mission in contact with F.L.O.S.Y. and the N.L.F. The idea was that the U.N. Mission should go to Baghdad at the end of this month. We thought that, since the Committee of 24 had planned meetings there, F.L.O.S.Y. might meet the Committee there. While we were not participating in that tour of the Committee of 24, we wanted to try to establish these contacts. However, the war overtook events. Nevertheless, I should mention that, despite the efforts which we made, there was no indication from F.L.O.S.Y. that it was willing to accept this invitation. One should not underestimate the difficulties involved in persuading the leaders of this organisation to come into consultation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon complained about there not being sufficient time to consider this matter fully and urged that time be allowed to take account of U.N. reactions to the announcement made today. There will be a Committee stage and subsequent proceedings in the House on the Bill. I have no doubt that there will be opportunities to discuss the problems of South Arabia a good deal in the days immediately ahead.
My hon. Friend also asked whether my right hon. Friend would be open to persuasion, as a result of U.N. reactions, in regard to our timetable for independence. I am bound to tell the House that that is not the case. We feel that there is great advantage in firmly setting now, seven months ahead, the date for independence. There is a great deal to be done. The public servants and others should know where they are in this matter and people should concentrate their thoughts and efforts on making a success of independence when it comes.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) asked why 9th January had been chosen and wondered whether the whole thing could have been postponed till a later date, when a more ideal situation existed in South Arabia—when the internal security situation could be guaranteed and so on. In expressing that view the hon. Gentleman was not expressing the same view as I understood had been expressed by the Opposition Front Bench earlier today. There does not seem to be any dispute about the inevitability of fixing a firm

independence date at this stage. The reason for fixing this date in January is because it coincides almost exactly with the date of the final military evacuation of the base. It is, therefore, for very practical reasons, a sensible date to have chosen for independence.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, irrespective of the circumstances, the Government will stick to that date regardless of what is going on in Aden at the time?

Mr. Thomson: One never says in this House that something will be done "irrespective of any circumstances". However, it is our firm determination to work to this timetable, and there should not be any doubt about that.
The Leader of the Liberal Party and others raised the question of the islands. Three groups of islands are involved; the Kuria Muria Islands off the coast of Muscat, the Perim Island and Kamaran. I will deal with the Kuria Muria Islands first. They have a population of about 100 in an area of about 28 square miles. They are right off the map of South Arabia, literally off the coast of Muscat. They come under the the administrative responsibility of Aden only because the Sultan of Muscat and Oman presented the islands to Queen Victoria in 1854 as a present. In fact, the people belong ethnically not to South Arabia but to Muscat and Oman, and it is for consideration, in deciding their future, whether they might not wish to return there. There must, of course, be consultation with the population of these islands.
Kamaran, again, is right off the map at the other end, literally up the Red Sea and off the Yemen coast. It has a population of about 2,500, of very mixed blood. It used to have a prosperous existence as a quarantine station for Mecca, but with changes in the transportation of pilgrims that lucrative trade has suffered a considerable slump. Here, again, one has to find out what the wishes of the population would be.
The island that attracts most interest is Perim, lying, as it does, at the southern mouth of the Red Sea. The hon. Gentleman put the proposition that one might seek some kind of international status for the island, and at this stage I would certainly not wish to rule that out


—we on this side of the House are always attracted by the possibility of some kind of international United Nations status for territories that are of importance, as Perim could be—but I must warn him and the House that there is no indication that the United Nations would jump at the opportunity of establishing Perim as a bit of United Nations territory.
The United Nations is not itself very well equipped in present circumstances to take over the task of administration, and there is more than one view about Perim's strategic possibilities. It is true that it is well placed in the mouth of the Red Sea, but there is a Yemeni headland a couple of miles away on top of which, I understand, are guns, so that the island would be very vulnerable, though the character of the problem might change if there was a genuine international presence there. That is why I should like a further opportunity to look at that suggestion.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party made a point about the position of Aden. This is the political heart of this Bill. I would only say that the question of consultation with the people of Aden is of a different character from the question of consultation with these small populations on these islands, if only because Aden is physically part of the South Arabian Federation.
We are very much aware that in this Bill we are having to create independence in conditions of unique difficulty; in conditions in which the elections will take place after the point of independence and not before the point of independence. I make no bones about it that this is not as we would have wished it. The reason for it is, first of all, that one is dealing with a whole series of States that are in treaty relationship with us, and not with British colonies. Secondly, there has over the last year or so been this persistent terrorism which has made the holding of elections inside Aden quite impossible.
The right hon. Member is quite wrong in believing that Mr. Mackawee was removed from being Chief Minister of Aden because he wanted Aden to be separate from the Federation. There is no evidence that anyone in South Arabia of any significance, no group that matters,

wishes Aden to be separate from the Federation. The struggle there is the real political struggle of who is to control the Federation, and not whether one bit should be separate from another. Mr. Mackawee is certainly in exile, but it is a voluntary, self-exile, and we have repeatedly made it clear to him that he and other F.L.O.S.Y. leaders are welcome to make a contribution to the constitutional process which will begin, and that we only ask that they should not publicly advocate and foment violence.
I have taken up more time than I had intended, but I think that I have dealt with all the points that have been made. I have no doubt that in Committee we shall have ample opportunity to deal with all these matters in greater detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ADEN, PERIM AND KURIA MURIA ISLANDS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for, and in connection with, the relinquishment of Her Majesty's sovereignty over Aden, Perim and the Kuria Muria Islands, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer,

of any sums required to be so paid respectively by virtue of any provisions of that Act relating to the Aden Widows' and Orphans' Pension Fund.—[Mr. George Thomson.]

11.41 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: It will be within the recollection of the House that some years ago former civil servants in the Sudan had a rough ride. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) was very active in supporting their interest. May we have a categorical assurance from the Minister that no British subjects or their dependants will suffer in any way in this instance?

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): Yes, Sir.


Perhaps the best assurance I can give the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) is that from the other side of the House I also was active on behalf of Sudan civil servants and others when independence Bills were passed. I have taken the opportunity to meet members of public servants organisations and I give the assurance that a very close watch will be kept on their problems.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — GAS INDUSTRY (BORROWING POWERS)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7th June], That the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st May, be approved.

Mr. David Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask your guidance? We are now to debate the expenditure of £300 million of taxpayers' money. The House has been sitting for 12 hours in order to expedite activities. Is it your opinion that we are in a fit physical condition to form an adequate judgment in the limited time available on whether this money should be spent?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): As the hon. Member is well aware, that is not a point of order.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Taylor.

Mr. John Peyton: On a point of order. I think we should ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you can find out from the Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—whether there is any information from the Government as to how long they wish us to carry on this discussion tonight. A very long time ago it was made clear by the Leader of the House that contentious business would not be taken in morning sittings. The whole idea of having morning sittings was that we should not have late sittings at night. We are faced with a very important Order which was launched against the wishes of the House in a morning sitting and now we have the hangover at night. This shows that the Government are as usual practitioners of bad taste and incompetence. I ask

for some guidance as to how long we are to go on tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is perfectly well aware that that is not a point of order for the Chair. This business appears on the Order Paper and it is my duty to call Mr. Taylor, who was in possession of the Floor when the debate was adjourned two weeks ago.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, when putting the Question on the last business, suggested that the Aden independence Bill was to be taken formally. There might be less objection if that had been done, but it was not so. We now have to enter upon discussion of this Order at a quarter before midnight. It is twelve days since the first half of this debate took place, on 7th June, in the morning. It is very difficult when one half of a debate takes place for two hours in a morning and the other half at midnight several days later. Surely there should be some means whereby the House could inquire of the Leader whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed further with this business tonight. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I draw attention to the fact—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must be aware that he is not raising a point of order. Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: On a point of order—a genuine one, I can promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Unlike the others."]—as were also the ones my hon. Friends raised. Is it not a fact that you are responsible for protecting the independence and freedom of Members of this House, and is it not also a fact that many hon. Members who wish to make lengthy points on this Order feel unable to do so because they would be detaining so many of their hon. Friends at this late time of night?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is well aware that the Chair is not responsible for arranging the business of the House. This is business which was arranged and announced, and we must continue with the debate.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Further to that point of order.

An Hon. Member: There is not a point of order.

Mr. Jenkin: With respect, there is a point of order. As I understood him, Mr. Speaker indicated to the House that it was his view that the Aden Bill, which we have just taken, would be taken formally, in which case this Order on the gas borrowing powers would have come on immediately at 10 o'clock. It is now a quarter to 12, and it really must be a question of the protection of the rights of the House—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—whether we really are to continue to debate this Order, by which, as my hon. Friends have said, £300 million of public money is at issue, at this hour of the night. It really is, if I may say so with respect, playing ducks and drakes with the House that this sort of matter should have to come on at this hour of the night. I would seriously request that there should be some way in which the matter can be debated at a more reasonable time in the evening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is well aware that he is not raising a point of order within the control of the Chair. The House was perfectly entitled to decide to debate the Second Reading of the Aden Bill. It having so decided, that matter consumed a certain amount of time. Having done that, the House now proceeds to the next item on the Order Paper.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I feel very guilty indeed at detaining hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do indeed, because I know that many of them have had a very full day discussing very weighty affairs, and I am also conscious of the fact—

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Get on with it.

Mr. Taylor—: that by speaking on this Order we are delaying consideration of another vital Measure affecting the safety of seamen. I think it is an outrage that we should be having to discuss this very vital problem at this late hour, but I think that another point which in itself shows the contempt which the Government have for the honourable representations of Members on this side of the House is that they must have known that I would be making certain important points about

the effect of this Order on Scotland when the debate was adjourned, and yet now we are resuming it, and I look across at the Government Front Bench, I see there not one member of the Scottish Office team who, though not primarily responsible for the Order, should be showing a much greater interest in the affairs of Scotland.
It makes one wonder what indeed is the point of trying carefully to prepare reasoned arguments to put to the Government when, obviously, they are not prepared to give consideration to them. I would suggest with all humility to the Government that if they are going to carry on in this way they can indeed look out for trouble, and real trouble at that, because if we on this side of the House get the impression that the Government are not giving careful consideration to the arguments put forward from this side there are various means whereby we can harry the Government, and harry the Government we will, till such time as we are convinced that they are giving real, proper consideration to our representations.
As my hon. Friends have mentioned, we have before us tonight an Order which is going to permit additional borrowing to the extent of £300 million. Now of course, it is true that we are, in present circumstances, becoming rather immune to millions; we talk glibly in this House about £10 million, £20 million, £30 million, and so on, as though they were in themselves not directly relevant to the taxpayers. But £300 million is an enormous sum, one which we should carefully consider.
We are asked to increase the borrowing powers from £900 million to £1,200 million, a rise of one-third. This is at a time when private industry is finding its capital schemes and aspirations gravely cut back by the Government's financial restrictions and the curbs on credit and it is an outrage that we should be asked to approve this increase at such a time. The Government will probably argue that this is good Keynesian economics, that it is a good thing that demand should be stimulated in the public sector and be held back in the private. There has been an enormous increase in public spending, however. This is not a good thing in present circumstances. However, it is possible that the fairminded


Members on this side of the House—and in them I certainly include myself—and others who are present and who have shown concern for the gas industry, might agree to the increase in borrowing powers if we have a clear idea of the pattern of spending which will be carried out and of the direction of the Government's fuel policy.
We have closely questioned the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and others about the direction of the Government's fuel policy and there have been no relevant answers. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has ceaselessly been questioning and probing into it.

Mr. Webster: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, since the 1965 Act, there have been so many changes among Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries that it is difficult to get a consistent policy?

Mr. Taylor: How right my hon. Friend is. But, even so, in the Government there are Ministries which have had no change of Minister and it is still difficult to find a trend of consistent policy. Whether the Government change Ministers of Power every six months or do not, we encounter difficulty in ascertaining policy.
At this late hour, it is not my intention to concentrate on the national aspects but on the Scottish aspects. The Minister has not shown acute awareness or real interest in fuel affairs in Scotland. He has only paid two brief visits to Scotland. Before I approve this extra borrowing, I want to know precisely how it will affect fuel policy in Scotland. How much of it is for Scottish projects? What long-term effect will it have on Scottish fuel policy? Many questions have been put on this matter but there have been no adequate answers. The result is genuine concern among consumers and alarm among those who produce energy. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is here. He is an advocate of one section of the fuel industry in Scotland and his questions have remained unanswered. This is one of the few Parliamentary opportunities we have to get answers. The Minister is under an obligation to say precisely what he intends to do with this extra money.
First, I want to deal with the consideration given to cost operation in Report

No. 7 of the Prices and Incomes Board, which was concerned with the increase in the price of gas in Scotland. The Board made clear that it would only agree to this massive rise in the price subject to certain administrative changes being made within the fuel industry in Scotland. I want to know from the Minister whether, in asking for this additional borrowing power of £300 million, it is his intention to implement fully the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes which will involve some capital spending and which therefore are directly relevant to the Order. We have had no indication that it is the Minister's intention to do so and it is high time that we did. Before the Order is agreed to I want to have a clear undertaking that the Minister is to implement the proposals.
In its recommendations the Board made clear that it was approving this substantial increase in the price of gas in Scotland Only on the understanding that this would be carried out. The Board said on page 15 of its report:
We therefore recommend that the Government should clarify the future relationships between the Scottish Gas Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board, and our conclusions on Scottish gas prices rest on the assumption that this will take place.
In other words, the Government were asking for an extra £300 million when the rise in the price of gas in Scotland was agreed to by the Board only on the understanding that certain administrative changes covering capital spending, and no doubt included in the £300 million, would take place. Can the Minister say if the changes will take place?
There was another recommendation that the financial obligations of the gas industry should be more closely related to those of the South of Scotland Electricity Board. There is a strange position in Scotland in which the Secretary of State, for no apparent reason, is responsible for electricity. The first loss of the South of Scotland Electricity Board was announced this week.
Is it the policy of the Government that the financial obligations of the two industries, with the help of the £300 million, should be more closely related? The Report went into this in great detail and pointed out that in the White Paper on the Financial Obligations of the


Nationalised Industries there was a reference to the artificial stimulation of the demand for electricity due to the different financial obligations of the two industries.
Therefore, we have to have an answer to the question: will any of this £300 million be used to carry out the appropriate capital works to ensure that there is equality in the financial obligations of the two power industries? We also want to know whether part of the £300 million will be used to make the administrative changes and whether the happy state will be reached in Scotland in which the gas and electricity industries are under the responsibility of one Minister. Whether that Minister should be the Minister of Power or the Secretary of State for Scotland is a matter on which there are conflicting views, but it is important that this division of responsibility should end.

Mr. Ridley: Can my hon. Friend tell the House which of these two solutions appears to be the most satisfactory? He is on a very important point.

Mr. Taylor: It is an important point and I am glad that my hon. Friend who has constantly shown his real interest in the affairs of Scotland should continue to demonstrate this interest. I should like to go into it and give my own views and the arguments for and against, but I feel that I would be stretching the bounds of order by so doing. For those reasons only I will not do so. My own view, bearing in mind the present occupants of the Ministry of Power and the Scottish Office, is that I would find it difficult to make a choice between the two. I am of the opinion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that this is an aspect of the matter which should be pursued.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The hon. Gentleman will not overlook the fact that it was his own party which gave home rule to the kilowatts, and left gas with the Ministry of Power?

Mr. Taylor: That is precisely the point that I was making—that when we had men of the calibre of my right hon. Friends in the Scottish Office this problem was not so acute. I am afraid that at present my difficulty is in making a choice

between the Ministry of Power and the Scottish Office; between two people, neither of whom are working for the best interests of Scotland.
As you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are concerned only with the matter relating to the adding of £300 million to the borrowing powers of the Gas Council. The second question that I should like to put in relation to these additional powers is whether any of this expenditure will be used to carry out capital works, or to finance projects to remove the appalling differential in the price of gas throughout the country.
On 23rd January of this year I asked a Question of the Minister of Power, relating to the price of gas. At that time the Minister revealed the most recent figures he had available, which were in respect of the year—[Interruption.]—I hope that hon. Members, since they have been so kind as to wait in the Chamber, will listen to this as it is a very important point, and I hope to persuade them to support my point of view on this Order.

Mr. Webster: Does my hon. Friend not find it rather sad that the Government party should find it extremely amusing to be approving the expenditure of £300 million at this time of night?

Mr. Taylor: How right my hon. Friend is. Words fail me when I think of the amounts of money which this House agrees to without thought and careful consideration. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar), who is always complaining about the drain from Scotland and Great Britain, that if he and his colleagues paid a little more attention to the passing of vast sums of money, which have a direct relationship to the increased taxation of this country, the drain of people would not be so great. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South wishes to carry on with this particular argument, I would suggest that he and his hon. Friends should pay more attention to the Order and its implications.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I appreciate the anxiety and sincerity of the hon. Member, but is he aware that he is the only Scottish Tory Member present?

Mr. Taylor: I must apologise for being detained on this matter, Mr. Deputy


Speaker, but I must answer this point. The fact is that, before this debate took place, I had a very full consultation with a good number of my hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies, and they have expressed their confidence in me—[Interruption.]—I am sorry to say that hon. Members opposite do not seem to agree—and my ability to present effectively the argument on their behalf.
They are very fully engaged tomorrow morning in the Scottish Grand Committee, furthering the interests of Scotland, as they have been furthering the interests of Scotland in the House today. There is no question at all that, if hon. Members were to discuss this at a reasonable hour, we would have had a larger proportion of my hon. Friends here. They have shown their confidence in me by asking me to speak on their behalf.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Could the hon. Member tell us why they were not here, excepting himself, when this Order was being discussed on 7th June?

Mr. Taylor: I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman, with whom I usually agree, is wrong. I took a careful note of Scottish Members present. Among them were the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker), the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), and the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter). The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South was not in his place when I took the count. The fact is that of the five Scottish Members who were present—six including myself—four were from the small band of Scottish Conservative Members and only two came from the massive representation which the Socialist Party temporarily has in Scotland. There is the answer.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Was the massive statistical analysis which the hon. Member has placed before the House based on a long-term count of hon. Members who were in the Chamber for a substantial period, or was it taken opportunely at a point chosen by the hon. Member as the time to record which Members from Scotland were present?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member implies that it is a loaded and planted question.

I admire his argument. It happened, however, that in the course of debate I thought it significant that so few Scottish Labour Members were present that I took a note of them. If he wishes to see my note, he will see inscribed the constituencies of Dumfries, Edinburgh, West, West Stirlingshire, Midlothian and Banff: four Scottish Conservatives out of a tiny band of men who work tirelessly for Scotland, and only two out of the massive band of Scottish Labour Members. The Scottish Labour Members should be ashamed of themselves. I include the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, who is always persistent on the few occasions he favours us with his company in the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Does not the hon. Member realise that I appeared in the House on that occasion for a short period but was driven away by the prospect of listening to him?

Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Member's interest in Scotland and in Scottish gas is so insignificant that one of my brief interventions was enough to drive him away from consideration of this vital topic, he should be ashamed of himself. In following the interests of Scotland, some of my hon. Friends from England—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—have sat through long harangues from Scottish Labour Members simply to protect the interests of Scotland. The interest of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South in Scotland and his commitment to the best interests of Scotland are so slight that it appears that a brief intervention from me will drive him away from his bounden duty to stand up for Scotland, which he certainly is not doing. I am sorry to say it, but it must be said. The hon. Member's commitment to Scotland, which he advanced so furiously in the election campaign in South Aberdeen, has been shown to be a shadow.
I hope that I will have the attention of hon. Members opposite in making some serious points on the Order. We are being asked to approve an additional £300 million of capital spending. My second question to the Minister is whether this—

Mr. Ridley: The Minister is not here.

Mr. Taylor: I am aware that the Minister is not here. The Secretary of State for Scotland is not here. None of the Scottish Office team is here. As for Scottish Members, we have to be happy with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, who is not in a position to represent the best interests of Scotland. I am advancing these points in the hope that when HANSARD becomes available, the Minister of Power will give the arguments and questions careful scrutiny. Bearing in mind the courtesy and consideration which we invariably receive from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, I hope that he will make a point of putting these arguments to the Minister at the earliest opportunity.
If I might come to the second point again—and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury for having put that point to me—I would ask whether any of this additional money will be used to remove the appalling scandal of the differential fuel prices which have existed for a long time in Scotland and which have now become very much worse. Indeed, it is having its effect on the Scottish economy. When my party was in power and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil was responsible for some of these affairs, I put these points to him as vigorously as I am trying to put them tonight. The situation is bad now and one would have thought that action would have come without my asking for it. We have this serious problem, but action has not been there; no action has taken place.

Mr. Dewar: In fact, the Scottish economy has never been stronger for many years, as the Scottish Council is always telling us.

Mr. Taylor: It is remarkable that the hon. Member should make that sort of interruption when the Scottish economy is crumbling, there are no fewer than 82,000 people out of work—many, no doubt, in his own constituency—and there is a situation in Scotland with which he appears to be so happy but which gives me no cause for happiness.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member really cannot go into this sort of argument.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and others of his hon.

Friends seem determined to distract me from making these important points in relation to the economy of Scotland and I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I may seek your help. But I will tell the hon. Member that, however much he and his hon. Friends try to distract me, and interrupt me all the time, I will continue to demand an answer from the Minister.
I am drawing attention to the failures of the Government in their Scottish policies but hon. Members opposite are only concerned with trying to draw me from these vital points.
I will try once again to return to my second point. It is whether, of this additional £300 million, any will be used to remove the appalling differentials which exist in the price of gas in Scotland. On 23rd January last, I asked about the price of gas in different parts of the country, and the Minister of Power gave me a reply in which I was able only to get the average cost per therm for the financial year 1965–66; but it disclosed the amazing difference as between 18·31 pence per therm in some areas and 27·59 pence in others; and a national average of 22·47 pence per therm, while the average revenue per therm for Scotland was 25·92 pence—or, if my arithmetic is right, a difference of about 15 per cent. more for Scotland than the national average in Britain as a whole.
When presented with figures like that, hon. Members opposite must surely realise the frustrating effect this must have on the Scottish economy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman really must not pursue this line of argument. He is entitled to ask about the £300 million and how it will be spent, but he must not continue as he has been doing.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was not my intention to do so. I was simply pointing out that this 15 per cent. differential existed then, and asking the Minister if part of this additional borrowing power will be used for capital works or for the financing of studies leading to the removal of the differential.
Since October, 1964, we have had a rise of over 19 per cent. in the price of Scottish gas, and in no other area of Great Britain has there—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that he must not pursue this.

Mr. Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is discussing Table 5 of "Gas Goes Natural", and the price per therm. Would he say if he has any views on whether the amortisation rate which gives this figure varies very much in Scotland, compared with the rest of the country?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) to answer that question or to pursue this matter in any detail. He is entitled to ask how the £300 million will be spent, but I think that he has asked enough questions about that already.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is entitled to answer a question about the rate of amortisation which is to be applied to these investments. If we are to invest these large sums of money through the Gas Council and the gas boards, it is highly relevant to consider whether we shall get quick returns, high returns, low returns, or whether the money will be written off after long or short periods. The effect which this money will have on gas supplies in the future seems to have implications not only for the Treasury and the borrowing side of the account, but for the Gas Council. I should have thought that any debate, even at this late hour, would not take place in the most helpful way if we were not able to consider matters as widely as this. On a previous occasion, I seem to remember that the debate went very much wider. I hope that it will not be circumscribed in this way, because I myself have many points which I wish to make.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that I have made the position clear. It is competent for the House, in discussing this Order, to inquire into the capital structure of the gas industry and matters related to it, but hon. Members cannot go into details about the price of gas per therm in Scotland as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Taylor: I shall relate my remarks directly to the Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I appreciate that we cannot have a general debate on fuel policy.
In the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, there is a story relating to the Scottish Gas Board about the expenditure of considerable capital sums on what was called a two-part tariff, and it suggested that, as a result, demand was over-stimulated and a lot of capital was lost. If much of the £300 million is to be used on capital developments in Scotland, there is a danger that much of it will be lost as a result of the continued differential in prices. It mentions specifically that the loss of revenue attributable to what is referred to as "this error of judgment" in the current year was £1¼ million.
If it is the Government's intention to spend a lot of this £300 million in Scotland, probably to stimulate demand and probably to compete with the electricity supply industry, they are wrong if they think that it can be done so long as the principle of differentials remains. So long as it remains, no matter how much capital is poured in, no matter whether two-part tariffs are introduced, and no matter whether new schemes are introduced, demand will not be stimulated on the basis of very high prices. It was for that reason that I wanted to draw attention to the existence of this big differential and to the fact that, in the previous two years, there had been an increase of 19 per cent. in Scotland, when in no other area in Britain had there been an increase of half that amount.
While I am most anxious that a fair share of the £300 million will be spent in Scotland, if it is to be spent on capital schemes with the intention of promoting more demand, no purpose will be served in Scotland so long as we have the appalling drain on our economy of a high price of gas compared with the rest of the country. That is the only point I shall make, and I hope I have related it to the Order we are discussing.
Then we come to the third question which I wish to ask the Government in relation to this Order to permit the spending of £300 million. I have read very carefully the remarks of the Minister when he was introducing this Order, in


which he indicated that most of this money would be spent on the supply of, and the adaptation of our gas industry for, natural gas.
I think that the Minister is under an obligation to the Scottish Members in this House, and to those who have a special interest in the promotion of the gas industry in Scotland, to indicate how much of this £300 million he envisages over a good period of years will relate to Scotland and natural gas.
I was very disappointed that, although we had some small concessions, only a very minor amount of the exploratory spending is related to the Scottish area. There are movements afoot, but if we look at page 7 of "Gas Goes Natural", there are lots of black dots in the sea off England and Wales, and none off Scotland, and this, I think, is very unfortunate indeed.
The black dots relate to the amount of money spent in going ahead to drill for natural gas—

Mr. Webster: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a red line denoting existing high pressure pipelines and planned pipelines winding up to Edinburgh, then it goes west to Glasgow, but Cathcart is not even on the map?

Mr. Taylor: We do not need to have our name put on the map to persuade people that Cathcart is a place of great importance—and to the future of Scotland in particular.
As I was saying, we have no black dots off Scotland, but we have a red line going up to Scotland. This is the route whereby gas is going to go. If the gas goes directly from the black dots to England it is a short journey, involving little capital expenditure. I hope I am not boring my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil. I am so sorry—I will try to make my remarks as brief as possible, but I would not be detaining the House if it was not a very important point.

Mr. Peyton: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way. I assure him I am listening to him with the greatest of interest. I hope he will give us the benefit of his wisdom for as long as he likes.

Mr. Taylor: It is not my intention to detain the House more than is necessary.

I hope I am not in any way boring my hon. Friend because I know he has a very real interest in Scotland.
To return to my point, the black dots are off England and there is a relatively small journey between these dots and the places where the gas is to be used. We do not see any black dots off the Scottish coast, however; we see instead a long red line going up to Scotland, and I would ask the Minister what are the implications of these black dots and this red line.

Mr. Dewar: Chicken pox.

Mr. Taylor: This is a very serious point. Is the implication of this long red line and these black dots that Scotland is going to get a supply which, in relation to this £300 million, will have to carry the full cost of that capital spending? If we find that £50 million has to be spent in getting this gas up to Scotland, will it be in relation to the Government's professed policy that natural gas will be supplied at a higher price in Scotland?
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a splendid article in that excellent English journal, the Evening Standard for Monday, 10th April. The headline is
Gas prices may be slashed by a third.
The report says:
The price of gas … could well come down by 6d. a therm in the 1970's.
This is because of the £300 million which is to be spent on exploiting natural gas. As the Minister says, it appears that we have the prospect of gas being 6d. a therm cheaper. Does this long red line mean that Scotland will not get the benefit of this reduction in the price of gas? We have been lucky enough to find natural gas off our shores. If we allow the Government to spend this money, will they at least ensure that all the area boards receive this natural gas at the same price?
On 17th April of this year I asked the Minister of Power whether.
it is his policy that natural gas from the North Sea should be made available to the various gas boards at a uniform price?
I did not ask for a subsidy for Scotland. I did not ask for special treatment for Scotland. I simply asked for equal treatment in the supply of natural gas.


The Minister replied:
I am not yet in a position to say what will be the terms for supply of natural gas to the Gas Boards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 28.]
I do not want to know the price at which it will be supplied. I want to know what the long red line means. Will this be a red line on the finances of the Scottish economy? Will this be a further drain on our economy? Will we be prevented from having our fair share of this bonanza off our shores?
Before we approve this additional borrowing of £300 million, which according to the Minister will be spent largely on exploiting natural gas, surely he can at least say whether he agrees in principle to supplying this natural gas to all the area boards at the same price. We must be given some satisfaction about this. We should not consider our responsibilities so lightly that we approve this borrowing power without having some idea of how the money will be spent, and what policy the Government will pursue.
These are vital questions, which the Minister must answer. I hope that if we approve this sum, and we may or may not, depending on the answers which we receive, the Minister will answer these vital questions. He cannot say that he has not had notice of this. I have repeatedly put down Questions, and questioned him privately, in correspondence, and in the House. I want him to tell us where we are going in our policy in relation to the gas industry, and in relation to pricing policy. We have not been told about this.
I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have shown their interest in this matter by staying here while we have been discussing it—and I appreciate their staying, even the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, with whom I have had words, and I think rightly and justifiably, but I hope that we will have his support—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Order. I would remind him that he has addressed the House for nearly 50 minutes already.

Mr. Taylor: I apologise to the House. I had not appreciated that I had been speaking for so long.
I should like specific answers to the three questions which I have asked, and which I think are important. Scotland cannot rest under this intolerable burden. I suggest that the House ought not to give the Government these powers until these questions are answered. If they are not, I hope that my hon. Friends, and indeed some hon. Gentlemen opposite, will ensure that before long these questions are answered, and that justice and equity are restored to Scotland.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I wish that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) had been a little more helpful in his discourse and had assisted some of us who have questions to ask arising from this Order. I make no apology for speaking at this late hour. I was one of those who sat right through the morning sitting and listened to the debate with great interest, with some of my hon. Friends who did not apologise for saying that they were associated with mining. They made it clear in the debate that they all had some reservations to make, and they called for a national fuel policy, which is outside the terms of reference of the Order.
I hope that we shall not be hypocritical this evening. I hope that when we have had a chance to study the speech of the hon. Member for Cathcart—which lasted for 50 minutes—we shall find that his remarks were more accurate than his mathematical calculations concerning the number of hon. Members attending the House when we last discussed the Order.
He told us that he is very diligent in reading HANSARD. I address this question to some of his hon. Friends who, at the outset of the debate, indulged in great protestations about the number of hon. Members attending at this late hour. I would refer the hon. Member for Cathcart to the report of the debate on 7th June, which is more accurate than his own statistics. The question was posed as to how many hon. Members opposite were present during the debate—

Mr. Webster: rose—

Mr. Eadie: I will give way if the hon. Member will allow me to finish my point. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power said:
Before the hon. Gentleman works himself into too much of a frenzy, will he consider


this? Given the importance of the Order which we are discussing and the vast size of the sums involved, does he still think that, even on Derby Day, more than six of his hon. Friends would have turned up?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 988.]
I assume that HANSARD is capable of correct mathematics—[Interruption.] I accuse the Opposition of being hypocritical in their attitude to the Order.

Mr. Webster: rose—

Mr. Peyton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must decide which of the contestants he wants to give way to.

Mr. Eadie: I will give way to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster).

Mr. Webster: I was not here during that debate. I was upstairs in a Standing Committee on the Road Safety (Driving Instruction) Bill, and am on record as having been there. I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given way. Many of my hon. Friends were there, keeping a quorum for the Government back bench Member who was trying to get his Bill through the House.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Member has given me my case. Hon. Members opposite were not present, and I assume that there were more Opposition Members in the Standing Committee than there were in the House. I accept that the hon. Member cannot be chastised for not being present.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the presence or absence of hon. Members. The hon. Member must come to the Order which is in front of us.

Mr. Eadie: We are discussing money for our energy requirements and must therefore put the Questions which the Minister put in introducing the Order. There is some inconsistency and what appears to be inaccuracy in the figures which we are given. For example, we are told that the natural gas output will amount in the 1970s—this is a Government estimate—to 2,000 million cubic feet a day, or 25 million tons of coal equivalent. But this gives rise to a difficulty, because the Gas Council talks about

30 million therms a day, which would be 50 million tons of coal equivalent, or double the Government's estimate.
We are talking about the money required and the expected consumption and yield of natural gas, and 50 million tons coal equivalent is a very small proportion of our requirements. I have never felt that coal need fear the competition of other fuel, provided that it has its proper share of meeting our energy requirements.
I must challenge the Government's policy and figures. The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that there have been accusations that the coal industry is paying for the experimentation on a nuclear engine. The Guardian on 12th June had a headline which read:
Scientists Denounce Waste in Nuclear Plant Programme
and said that coal would be cheaper to produce than nuclear energy envisaged for the present or near future.
Therefore, are the figures which the Minister gave us inaccurate? Who is right and who is wrong? We must remember that we are discussing spending money on energy requirements. When he introduced the Order, the Minister was pressed by the Opposition about the cost per therm of gas. When the figure of 2½d. per therm was rumoured, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power said that a decision had not been reached, one way or the other. In that debate my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) pointed out that the cost should be based on 2½d. per therm and he demonstrated that the British coal industry was today able to produce 12 million tons of coal at an equivalent of 3d. per therm, and 127 million tons at less than 5d. per therm.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there are 10 pits, four of which are producing coal at an equivalent of 2·3d. per therm and that two of these pits produce 1½ million tons of coal a year?

Mr. Eadie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those figures. Like myself, my hon. Friend came straight from the coalface to this House and has vast experience of the coalmining industry.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has referred to Algerian gas. If


we are to authorise the spending of these vast sums of money, we should be told precisely how the money is to be spent, and I understand that we will not be able to obtain Algerian gas. As we can produce energy from coal on a big scale for less than 7½d. per therm, it is a scandal that we should be doing away with our own resources.

Mr. McGuire: To prevent clouding the issue, will my hon. Friend make it clear that no more than 2 million tons of coal is produced at anything like an equivalent of 7d. per therm? We produce it for much less than that; and my hon. Friend mentioned 127 million tons at between 3d. and 5d. per therm.

Mr. Eadie: I was coming to that. I first wanted to make it clear that to charge the consumer more for energy obtained from outside this country than we can produce it ourselves is lunacy. The Government must explain the reason for this state of affairs. Is it because the former Tory Administration entered into contracts of this description?
The requirements of the nation are sometimes exaggerated. That is true not only of the amount of gas we are likely to consume, but the amount of money that will be necessary to develop it. We should remind ourselves all the time that we produce about 60 per cent. of our requirements from coal.
There is something unrealistic about this debate. Is it right that the House should be discussing approval of the borrowing of £300 million from the point of view only of the Ministry of Power? There must have been some consultation between the Minister of Power and the Secretary of State for Defence, because strategic considerations also are involved. If oil and Algerian gas are cut off, strategic problems arise in connection with building up our indigenous resources. Some of my hon. Friends have argued for years that the whole philosophy of profitability is wrong, and that defence and strategic questions should also be borne in mind. If we are not to get oil because of the Middle East crisis we must take a hard and cool look at the means of supplying the nation's energy requirements—

Mr. McGuire: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the biggest weakness here, and what makes the argument

rather lopsided, is the fact that we are discussing only one small part of our total energy requirements, and that only when we have the whole picture can we best determine what is in the nation's interest?

Mr. Eadie: I could not agree more. That point was very adequately put in the earlier part of the debate by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who said there was something unrealistic about the discussion and that we should be debating every aspect of our energy requirement. But as £300 million is involved, the House is entitled to be told whether the Minister has had any discussions with the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps the borrowing should be shown under defence expenditure rather than as it is here. I can see hon. Members nodding their agreement. Should not the building up of the nation's indigenous resources be discussed and costed in relation to defence? If the nation cannot be supplied with the energy necessary for its industry and economy, we could be crippled in a fortnight.
Some of us, including myself, have been very aggressive towards my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and towards my hon. Friend, but unless something happens very quickly I give my personal assurance that we will be very very much more aggressive. We shall roast the life out of them unless we get a sensible policy for our indigenous resources. What has happened so far is that my right hon. Friend has already managed to lose virtually all the good will of the mining fraternity by his pronouncement that 140 million tons of coal will probably be all that the miners will be asked to produce. He must not be surprised if the miners say that it is a gross betrayal by a Labour Government, because some of us consider that such a policy would be a gross betrayal by a Labour Government.
Another thing he has managed to do—the hon. Member for Cathcart will appreciate this—has been to fragment and split up my area so that this week the miners there have said that there will be no more co-operation with the National Coal Board. I never thought that a Labour Government would do this. They have disappointed the miners and accused them of disloyalty so that


they say they will no longer co-operate with the Board.
These are very important questions. We should not stay up until this time at night regularly, but we do so tonight because we are determined to fight on behalf of the people we represent. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply saisfactorily. I hope that he has taken a warning from this debate and that he will heed it in future, or he will be in for a stormy passage.

12.51 a.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I am certain that the whole House will appreciate the sincerity and warmth with which the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has spoken. I feel certain, also, that the time will come when he and his hon. Friends who feel like him will be able to show their feelings in the Division Lobby.
The Parliamentary Secretary must feel diminutive at this time of night when hearing one of his hon. Friends say in the absence of the Minister that unless something is done very quickly they will be more aggressive. The hon. Member complained that there is something rather unrealistic about this debate. He called for consultation between the Minister of Power and the Secretary of State for Defence. Mr. Speaker, you would not wish me to follow that line of argument, but I am sure that the Minister of Power would be far better left to his own devices than to endanger himself in the horrid experience of consulting his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, for whose opinions I have little regard.
The Minister opened this debate the other day as one of those little informal issues which could be disposed of tidily in a morning sitting, in breach of what the Leader of the House had told us. Now at this late hour we are still debating the Order. The Government have only themselves to blame for that. When we introduced the Order, the Minister treated the House to one of those Ministerial prophecies with which no one could possibly disagree and in which he is almost certain to be proved right. He said:
I shall almost certainly return to the House with a Bill to provide for still higher limits which will give an opportunity for a much

wider debate on the whole subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 978.]
That will be next year.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Too late.

Mr. Peyton: We are discussing an Order concerning £300 million of public money. If this does not give a full opportunity for a wide debate covering all the affairs of the gas industry, I do not know what does. There can be no gainsaying this. The odd thing is that the House is asked to agree to the means of financing what the Foreign Secretary once described as "a squalid hand out to the Tory Party's oil companies".
Of course, the Government are to be congratulated on having swallowed those words with almost convulsive haste and proceeded with the policies which were initiated by their predecessors. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says "Shame" from a sedentary position. Would he like to say it from a standing position? He carries a little more weight when standing up; not much. We are very pleased that the Government have decided to go ahead with this very important development in the North Sea and to encourage it by every means in their power, but I am and always have been disturbed by the complete lack of generosity which is so inherent in right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that they can never acknowledge either that they were ever wrong or that their opponents were ever right.
They have never given even a word of acknowledgement to the Administration which really hurried up this very important process, whose importance they themselves now acknowledge. Nor have they ever, in my hearing at any rate, paid any tribute to the civil servants who, above all, were responsible for the speed with which this operation was carried out. I had some personal experience of this, and I have many times seen the matter go to many people, but I have never heard a word of credit given publicly and willingly by the present Government to the incredible efficiency and speed with which areas of the North Sea were allocated, and the whole procedure laid out, before any other country, equally interested in the North Sea, even started to get its thinking cap on.
It is a great pity that the Government have been so ungenerous, not only to their opponents—we do not expect any generosity from them; nor cannot we live without it—but to the officials. I am surprised that the Government have never seen fit to acknowledge the immense debt which this country owes to those officials concerned, whose number can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that it is hardly a sign of generosity on the part of the oil companies that they should be negotiating as they are on whether it should be 2d. or 3d. a therm, when it is estimated by so many experts that the cost of producing this gas, the exploration and development cost over a 20-year period, is probably ½d. a therm? Surely that is not the hallmark of generosity?

Mr. Peyton: I am sure that we are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his dissertation about generosity and the attitude of the oil companies in this matter. I have no doubt that, as the debate goes on, at some weary hour of the morning, the hon. Gentleman will be able, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to catch your eye, and I am sure the House will be privileged to hear his contribution.
I wondered this afternoon when I was pondering upon this subject whether anybody had ever really applied his mind to the serious fact that here we are talking about methane in the North Sea, and that the other name for it is marsh gas. It seems not inappropriate that someone should at last draw the attention of the House to this significant fact. I do not wish to dwell on it. But there it is. Neither will I weary the House with chemical definitions. Nor with some of the other things which, the dictionary says, come out of stagnant pools. It would be unseemly if I were to do that.
One of the really serious points here, though, is the question of the huge sums of money which are involved. The Minister gave some very interesting figures the other day. Some of them are repeated in this excellent booklet issued by the Gas Council, "Gas Goes Natural". The Minister very fairly stated that for 1966 alone the estimated shortfall was £69 million—in one year and

for 1967, so the Minister told us, we were to be £130 million short; the requirement would be some £130 million more than estimated in 1965. Page 14 of this interesting booklet gives the requirement for the quinquennium 1967–68 to 1971–72 as £1,450 million, of which only £205 million, which is applied to production plant, is not really concerned with the business of producing natural gas from the North Sea.
These are huge sums. Bearing in mind the inaccuracies, for which any Government and certainly the gas industry can be forgiven, what price a fuel policy now? Supposing the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had listened to the advice he got from high quarters. Supposing he had done so terrible a thing as to ingest some of the Prime Minister's speeches on the need for a fuel policy, for planning of fuel, and had embarked the country on a fuel policy. What would have been the consequences, with this sort of error being there all the time?
Now the Minister—and I respect him for it—preaches how important flexibility is in fuel policy. It is a notable conversion. He said the other day that the growth of the gas industry over the past two years amounted to 9 per cent. per annum as against an estimate of 7½ per cent. It is apparently estimated that the growth over the next five years will be 12½ per cent. per annum. This is a huge rate of growth for any industry.
The industry is faced with adapting a new material, with all the difficulties of conversion and the rest, and having to judge, in an agonising reappraisal, the moment at which to discontinue its investment in production plant. The possibility of its guesses being wrong or anything other than wasteful is huge. I make it clear that I make no reflection on Sir Henry Jones and those who share his responsibilities. I have immense regard for him. He has served the industry wonderfully. It is strange that Ministers do not find the time to say a word of appreciation of men like Sir Henry, who are not big publicity seekers but whose service to the industry in this period of change is going to be of incalculable importance.
Nothing that Ministers can do or say has anything like the value of service like that of Sir Henry Jones and his colleagues. The nation owes them an


enormous debt of gratitude and appreciation. That is not to say that I agree with all Sir Henry's judgments. On North Sea gas prices I have even expressed some slight difference of opinion with the views which, I gather from the Press, he has.
The real point, that cannot be stressed too much, is the enormous investment that will be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that, over the next five years, transmission and distribution costs will be in excess of £800 million. The fact that we are discussing the destiny of some £300 million gives the Minister an opportunity, which the Government have not yet taken, to deal fairly fully with this important question. We have had very little so far on the subject of exploration. The Minister said in one of those famous phrases that Ministers use when they do not wish to deny something categorically, that there was no evidence that the delay in reaching agreement on price was holding up the physical work of dedevolpment of the fields and the bringing of the gas ashore. That is the sort of partial denial which puts an awkward fact on one side. But if agreement is not soon reached and the price is not encouraging to those who do the drilling, presumably it will have an effect. I do not think that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would deny that.
One of the points that one has to consider, and on which I should like to know the Government's thinking is the price. This would enormously effect the issue in the long run. Have the Government considered the possibility of a two-stage price arrangement in which the price in the initial three, four or five years, as is the case with B.P., is higher than the Government would wish but lower than anything which has gone before in energy? Would it not be reasonable to contemplate paying a higher price for a short period pending a higher load factor on the pipelines, which would encourage the maximum exploration? I believe it to be of the highest importance in the national interest that the country should know what is in the North Sea.
It is no good hon. Members opposite babbling every now and again about nationalising the whole affair. I would

like to see some of them going and drilling a hole in the North Sea. The consequences make the imagination boggle. [Interruption.] I hear one of my hon. Friends suggest that this would be one way of producing by-elections, but it would only muddy up the issue. I would not be so cruel as to ask the Government to dispatch hon. Members in that way. We must leave it to their constituents.

Mr. Eadie: Has the hon. Member ever drilled a hole?

Mr. Peyton: No. I am not saying that I am an expert in this, but to a large extent there are only certain people who are competent to do this operation and it seems to me that it would do this country a lot of good to encourage them to get on with it as quickly as possible so that we may know the extent of one of our most important assets.
In his speech the Minister said:
… there is ample scope for a commercial agreement which will meet the legitimate interests of all the parties, …"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 7th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 980.]
We must all hope that this will come fairly soon. I think that the Gas Council may have been optimistic in its first bid for a low price. I can understand its desire to achieve, even at this early stage, a price low enough to enable a new fuel to be injected into the fuel economy with speed and thoroughness. The wiser course is, in the initial years, to have a rather higher price.
The Minister told us, in a moment of charming candour, that he has a preference for being criticised by the Opposition rather than by his own party. I am not quite certain as to what extent he will be able to exercise any right of election here, because it is quite clear that, although the Opposition will always treat him with mildness and courtesy, and certainly would not dream of threatening him with the aggressive conduct which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian hurled at him just now, he will inevitably be caught between two fires.
Another point which I hope he will deal with is the question of storage. This will greatly affect the whole programme. There are seasonal swings in loads, referred to on page 12 of the brochure to which I have already referred.


This refers to five methods of dealing with storage—the manufacture of substitute natural gas, varying the rate of flow from the producing wells, underground storage, storage of liquefied natural gas and interruptable supplies to specified consumers. These are ally methods of storage, and what one would like to know is how much of the money that we are now concerned with, the £300 million, is to go into storage facilities. This booklet refers to two underground storage sites, which are under investigation. It says that more sites are being examined. These are things about which we should be given more information.
We have also to consider the effect that the sudden injection of this new fuel into the economy will have upon other fuels. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary has experience of this. Lord Robens seems to be able to lecture everyone on almost everyone's job. He tells the Government, very freely and publicly, how they should run their fuel policy. I do not doubt that he gives very free advice to his colleagues who are chairmen of the nationalised fuel industries.
What hon. Gentlemen who defend the fuel industry have to face, and Lord Robens has to face this too, is that if the fuel industry is to retain for itself any significant share of the fuel market, it has to be able to show how it is to do that. It is no good simply asking other people to put up artificial defences, which the tides of time and nature will surely sweep away. I recollect saying, when we had just become an opposition, that the coal industry must be content to shrink itself into those areas where it was capable of economic production, where highly capitalised pits could be worked 24 hours a day, on a seven-day week. I remember at the time that some hon. Gentlemen who had spent a lifetime in the pits told me that I did not know what I was talking about, but I notice now that the view is becoming a little more fashionable.
I do not believe that anyone does the coal industry any good by simply saying that these new developments must be held back in the interests of the industry. The most important contribution that can be made to the health of the coal industry is by and from the industry itself.

Mr. McGuire: Would the hon. Member not agree that no other industry in the energy sphere, gas, electricity, and certainly not nuclear power, which has been feather-bedded all the way—and this has come to light recently—has had to adapt itself to such traumatic changes?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his speech. He must intervene briefly. We cannot debate the coal industry tonight.

Mr. McGuire: All that I want to do is to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the coal industry does not expect to be feather-bedded for ever and a day. In 1954, under the Tory Government, the Coal Board was commissioned to find out what would be the maximum—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Member to make a speech on the coal industry in the guise of an intervention. He must intervene briefly.

Mr. McGuire: With respect, Mr. Speaker, if an hon. Member gives way and allows me to intervene, it must be permissible for me to reply as briefly as possible; but if I stray and go wrong, it is fair that I should be called to order. I am trying to point out to the hon. Member that in 1954 the then Conservative Government commissioned the Coal Board to arrive at what was the maximum production—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am doing exactly what he would ask Mr. Speaker to do. If he wants to intervene and an hon. Member has given way so that he might do so, he must intervene briefly. He cannot make a second speech.

Mr. McGuire: Within the limits you have laid down, Mr. Speaker, I will return the compliment by asking the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who has been good enough to give way, whether he can tell me of any other industry which has had Government action forced upon it in the way that the Coal Board has done.

Mr. Peyton: I do not know of any fuel industry which has not had enormous difficulties. If the hon. Member cares to look at the one which we are discussing—the gas industry—he has only to go back in years to get to a time when, if the most intelligent people—I am not,


of course, talking about myself—had got round a table with a view to formulating a fuel policy for the future, there would have been complete unanimity that the gas industry was for the scrap heap; it was no good, it had no future. If that was not facing a fairly gloomy prospect, I do not know what it was.
Of course, the coal industry has had, and has, its difficulties. I am prepared to concede that it also has a tremendous emotional past and that there is a great deal too much bitterness in it. It is no good, however, the industry seeking to live in the past, because the future will have no mercy with it if it does.

Mr. McGuire: Would it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, I point out that we cannot debate the coal industry tonight except as it is related to the figure of £300 million.

Mr. McGuire: Would not the hon. Member, who has instanced the writing-off a few years ago of the gas industry, agree that what seems to be the trend to write off the coal industry could equally be dangerous?

Mr. Peyton: I should not pursue that argument, but I am human and I yield to the temptation to remind the hon. Member that only last year we wrote off nearly £500 million worth of capital debt of the coal industry, which should have been of substantial assistance to it. Does the hon. Member wish to intervene?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not offer temptation to which others might yield.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, but you would, I am sure, be the first to agree that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) took me slightly away from the rules of order, to which, naturally, I wish to return.
We should have had more from the Minister about the effect upon other fuels of this enormously important development. We also should have had at least a slightly coy reference to the gas price. Our memories may not always be long, but we can all remember that shortly before we parted for a recent recess, there was an announcement of a sharp rise in electricity prices. The reason was given that because of a very mild winter and

because of an overestimate in demand which was not realised, there had been a lot of capital expenditure which had not been justified. The only course which the industry was able to put to customers was an increase in price. Here we are, faced with a very steep capital investment programme for the gas industry, and one just wonders if the Government are satisfied that this is sufficiently near to the right tenor and the right balance to avoid a very sharp increase in the price of gas because of expenditure which turns out subsequently to be unjustified.
There is another big step into which I will not be tempted to go in any detail—but I am a director of a manufacturing company—and that is the conversion of appliances. This, added to the rest of the issues which I have raised, means that there is a vast sum of money and national assets in skill and energy going into the great North Sea adventure. The Government owe it to the House to recognise their duty to keep the House informed of the progress which is made. In addressing ourselves to this problem it is incumbent upon the Government to keep their mind clear of prejudices and not, for example, to worry too much about being bullied by Tribune. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is not with us, but I would tell him if he were here that I am terrified of the effect he might have on the Minister. He might frighten his right hon. Friend into all sorts of errors of judgment which one would hope the Government would do their best to avoid.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not make the mistake of thinking that I am anxious only to remain on my feet. The Government can fall into error, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and, through him, the Minister, not to treat this matter lightly. No less than another £300 million is being borrowed, and dishing out this Order at this hour of the night is a point of which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note. I hope that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be told of the opinion already expressed from this side of the House that we do not like this kind of treatment. Of course, I acquit the Parliamentary Secretary, but the Government as a whole do not appear to appreciate the complexity nor the transcendental importance of this issue so far as the country's economy is concerned.

1.23 a.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Even at this hour I would say a kind word to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and take up the point made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that this Order has been brought in at a late hour of the night. The hon. Gentleman may have his little frivolities, but at least he is consistent; for, on 8th December, 1964, he complained when a similar Order was introduced at 10.20 p.m. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) complained on 7th June last when the Order was introduced in the morning; so, it would seem that it is wrong in the morning, and wrong at night. The hon. Gentleman complained on that occasion that it was wrong for the Order to be debated in the morning because the House had been up all night. This type of Order began in 1961, and when the then Conservative Minister of Power introduced one at 11.6 a.m. there were no complaints—and that was on a Friday morning.
Having made that point, I think that hon. Members will agree that it is unfortunate that a debate on the gas industry and the fringe areas should be taken almost by chance because the Gas Council has come to the limit of its borrowing powers and has to be revitalised with extra funds. I suggest that it should be a regular part of our Parliamentary business to have at least one day a year devoted to debating each nationalised industry, with two or three further days set aside for us to consider how they are related one to another.
If we had the opportunity, we might want to go into detail on this Order about the structure of the Gas Council, the composition of area boards, the capacity of the industry, the effectiveness of its operations, and the validity of the Gas Council's advertising claims. For example, to repeat something which has been said outside the House, "High Speed Gas is simply an old flame tarted up a little." Some of its claims are misleading, and might even be referred to the Advertising Council for comment.
However, that is not to deny the real progress which has been made by the Gas Council in the last six or seven years. The industry was considered to be an old, dilapidated and dying one, but it has

made a tremendous recovery. The new look began on that Friday morning, when the then Minister of Power announced that he had authorised the Gas Council to begin the importation of natural gas from the Sahara, and the forecast was that one-tenth of our gas supplies would eventually come from that source.
Have recent events in the Middle East and North Africa resulted in any break of supplies of natural gas from Algeria? For a long time now, we have had contracts with the Algerian Government for the supply of methane. Frozen methane ships have been provided, and so on. We are told that oil supplies have been stopped from North Africa, but there is some doubt about whether supplies of natural gas from the Sahara have stopped. Even more important, I should like from the Parliamentary Secretary an unequivocal assurance that his Ministry has accepted the lessons which we have learned in the last few weeks from the events in the Middle East, that the only secure, reliable, and dependable sources of fuel are those which we have in the British Isles and the waters surrounding us. They include hydro-electricity, coal, natural gas, and atomic energy. However safe supplies of fuel from abroad may seem, they can never be 100 per cent. reliable.
I want now to take up one point which was referred to by the hon. Member for Yeovil. I always listen carefully to what he has to say, though I do not always agree with him. He makes many points which are always interesting to read afterwards. However, he has no cause to preach efficiency to the coal industry. I do not think that he meant to, but people outside may read that into what he said.
Can my hon. Friend tell us if any part of the funds which are now to be made available will be used for the provision of underground natural reservoirs for methane from the North Sea? I have seen it reported that final tests are being made by the Gas Council on the possibility of building Britain's first underground reservoir in a porous rock formation at Sarsden, near Chipping Norton, in Oxfordshire. Such a natural container will give rise to no town planning difficulties, as there would be in the case of a container above ground. It is estimated that by drilling two or three manholes,


a reservoir could be provided to hold many millions of cubic feet of gas. This is to provide a storage space so that the gas can be stored down below in the summer time and leaked out again later to meet demand.
I would point out to the Minister that there is a strange anomaly here. The gas is already in a natural reservoir under the North Sea; why spend £5 million of taxpayers' money putting in another reservoir on this site? I expect the argument in reply is that if we can guarantee continuity of pressure through the pipelines we can ensure steadier supplies and get a better price.

Mr. Palmer: Would it not be wise to burn some in the power stations?

Mr. Ogden: No, with respect to my hon. Friend, I think this is a most wasteful way, and I will return to that point later. I am just making the point that it is said that we can use the taxpayers' money to store the gas underground in one reservoir when we already have it stored underground in another under the North Sea. This does not seem to be the best use to which to put the taxpayers' money.
I should also like the Minister to have a look at the real difficulty which lies in the leases and licences allocated by the previous Administration. When these leases and licences were made, I think I am right in saying they were for periods of seven years for exploration and 30 years for exploitation. We could make a study of how much it would cost the Exchequer to buy back from the companies, on full and fair terms of compensation, the leases that have been let for exploration or exploitation, so that supplies can be best used in the national interest.
Particularly I would make the point that if I—and it is highly unlikely—had a hole in the sea bed of the North Sea with gas down there, and I had only got the right to exploit it for 30 years, I would want to make very certain at the end of the 30 years that there was no gas remaining in that area. I think a study could well be made with the object of finding out the cost and the feasibility of getting back into national control the areas covered by those leases that have been let out.
I hope the Minister may possibly be able to comment on the progress of the £100 million national grid that is to be laid. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)—and I would not comment on the content of his speech though I congratulate him on the manner in which it was delivered—spoke about black dots and red lines. It was, of course, the grid to which he was referring. This is supposed to cost £100 million and to be completed by 1970. Could we have some reference to its progress?
Can the Minister say how effective the conversions of town gas appliances to natural gas have been in Canvey Island? I understand it took 250 fitters about 70,000 man hours to complete this particular operation and within a month 7,000 complaints had been received about the conversions of appliances and 2,500 about gas leaks. How long would it take to convert the 12 million households of Britain to the new system?
I finally come back to the point that this is not the best way—at this hour or in these circumstances—for the national fuel industry to be discussed. We should have opportunities from time to time throughout the year—full days—on which to consider matters of such importance.

1.34 a.m.

Mr. David Webster: The hon. Gentleman made a point regarding the length of life of the gas field, and he was talking of his own hypothetical gas field. But I think this is one of the points which the House would wish to consider very thoroughly before we decide on prices.
Having been to Holland and seen the Dutch company N.A.M.'s concentration on pricing, I realise that it is so complicated and difficult when it is tied up with a hypothesis that the field will still last approximately 40 years. I think that this is a sensible basis on which to work, and I should like to hear what the Minister thinks about it. This is a difficult problem, because if we make it for more than 40 years the type of fuel might become redundant because of the reduced cost of nuclear power, and if it is—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I hope that my hon. Friend will look at the estimates given for the price of nuclear energy. All the past estimates have proved to be


wildly inaccurate, particularly in relation to the Hunterston plant.

Mr. Webster: I used to be the rapporteur on nuclear energy matters in the Council of Europe. One problem which worried us was the rate of amortisation of these tiny capital-intensive operations. My hon. Friend is trying to seduce me from the straight and narrow by raising the question of nuclear energy. I do not think that I must allow myself to be tempted out of order by him. We in this country write off our nuclear power stations in 20 years—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must correct himself. I thought he was going to, but he is now wandering off.

Mr. Webster: My hon. Friend did rather take me off the line.
We also have to consider for how long we will use natural gas as a form of energy, because this is part of the cost. If we give the exploring firms a reasonable price, they will develop the supply quickly, but if we impose a price below the 3d. level, they will not do so, and much of the resources will remain at the bottom of the sea instead of being used. It is, therefore, a fine judgment, quite apart from some of the political doctrines involved, and the sincere and honest points which have been put forward by the coal mining industry.
There is, too, the question of the amortisation of the vast expenditure which the House is being asked to approve. I must add my protest to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), and agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), that we do not like morning sittings. We are supposed to discuss non-controversial business during morning sittings. One can hardly say that spending £300 million of taxpayers' money is non-controversial. I am not sure that the early watches of the night is the right time to discuss this matter either, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government should provide time to discuss this more adequately during the day.
Prior to the 1965 Gas (Borrowing Powers) Act the level of the borrowing power was £650 million. It was then raised to £900 million, with a top level

of £1,200 million. I appreciate that the capital requirement of the industry is about £1,450 million, and that some of it is generated within the industry, but this is a tremendous increase. I appreciate, and pay tribute to, the way in which the Gas Council went ahead and developed the fields and exploited our indigenous fuel. Perhaps I might tell the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) that this is an indigenous fuel, and it is right that we should exploit it. Events in the Middle East have shown that it is right to exploit it quickly.
The question of price is a matter of fine judgment. At the moment it is rather a political judgment as well. When one reads again the document "The Growing Gas Industry", produced two years ago at the time of the Borrowing Powers Bill, and the Gas Bill, two Measures which went through the House at about the same time, it is almost like reading ancient history. It is very interesting to compare the forecasts made then with what we are doing now. Development is so fast. One cannot but have sympathy for those who are trying to arrive at a good and sound economic judgment. This is what the House must do.
Some hon. Members have spent their lives in the mining industry and are here to defend the rights of those in that industry. It is right and proper that they should do so. There are also those who take the political view that all North Sea gas should be nationally controlled. I accept that that view exists. I happen to oppose it. I would have thought it much better for the Government not to involve themselves in risk exploitation. They should leave it to the companies to make the attempt—but those companies should be paid a realistic and reasonable amount to take the risk.
My hon. Friend was talking about the amount set aside in the Order, or the document accompanying it—£190 million for the adaptation of existing space heating equipment, and equipment both in the home and in industry. It is a considerable amount. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how much this will cost in the next few years? We know from what the Minister has said in the document "Gas Goes Natural" that we shall have another Bill next year,


and shall have to debate the matter again. It is becoming an annual matter.
Like others who resisted the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Bill in 1965, and sought to amend it afterwards, I thought that it was wrong to bring such a Measure in at a time when the industry was undergoing such acute change. I hope that we shall be given an indication how much of this £190 million will be spent in the next five years. I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary will let me have a note later, if he cannot give me an answer tonight.
The hon. Member for West Derby raised the question of underground capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil will recollect that when we discussed this matter in the 1965 Bill my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) was very reasonable in trying to assist the Government and to show his constituents that this type of gas storage was safe and reasonable. But is it still necessary? Must we do what is almost the equivalent of what the Americans are doing when they get gold from South Africa and take it to America and bury it at Fort Knox? We are running a risk in taking natural gas from Algeria and burying it in Winchester and in the Cotswolds. I wonder whether this is right, in view of developments since 1956. We should be given the relevant figures.
We have heard talk about substitute natural gas. Everybody should know that there is no substitute for natural gas. Could we be told how much will be required; how much it will cost, and how much equipment is needed to make it? I am grateful to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) coming into the Chamber. I do not know whether he is going to talk about the Order.
I notice that at the time of the publication of "The Growing Gas Industry" in 1965 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology—then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power—produced a document called "The New Economy", referring to the use of computers. Some of the documents we have before us refer to a computer grid within the industry. How much this will cost I do not know. I should like to know whether the whole

economy of the country can be controlled by computers, including those used in the gas industry.
In view of the number of documents that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North has brought in I had better cut my remarks short.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Although I did not attend the previous debate on the Order, and thus rise with diffidence, I have spoken on gas before, and made by maiden speech on the subject.
What I debated in my maiden speech and what the Conservative Government of the day prophesied is materialising in my constituency, so the Order is significant particularly to the Sheffield area, where the pipelines which are the subject of the Order are being laid rapidly. Construction work and immense excavations can be seen around the city. Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour and the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is waiting to make an important contribution, I will curtail my speech—

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend need not hurry: the night is yet young if he wants to speak at length.

Mr. Osborn: I thank my hon. Friend but do not want to speak for too long.
Under the Order, the Gas Council wishes to borrow an additional £300 million. As I said on 8th December, 1964, in the debate on Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order also at the late hour of 11.48 p.m.:
We are trustees for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th Dec., 1964; Vol. 703, c. 1491.]
This is public money. The 1,300 miles of pipeline will be 24 inch or 36 inch in diameter and will cost about £200 million, although some hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken of £100 million. This vast sum is being incurred.
The accounts show that the industry's capital assets, on 31st March, 1966, were £893 million. The valuable publication, "Gas Goes Natural", which I would recommend to a wider audience than this House, and for which the Gas Council deserves congratulations, shows that the


average capital outlay for five years has been £78·2 million and the total projected capital investment is £1,450 million, which means that, allowing for depreciation and so on, double the amount invested in the industry at present will be spent on it in the next five years. We, as the taxpayers' trustees, must be satisfied that this vast sum will be well spent.
The first essential is that the rate of expansion predicted in "Gas Goes Natural"—we were talking in previous debates of 10 per cent. and other figures were predicted—will materialise.
In the Sheffield area heat treatment is a problem. Calorific value is one feature of the gas, but constant flame size is another. This is a mere problem for industrial rather than the domestic consumers because flame size is vital in certain heat treatment processes especially where the control is sensitive. To what extent is the transition from manufactured town gas—from reformed gases shipped from Africa and other sources—to North Sea gas supplied as natural gas providing a variable which is tolerable to industry? The flame size differs with the different type of gas as today we have gas with a lower carbon monoxide content, with a variation in hydrogen content and varying methane content. Industry requires a gas with stable and consistent properties. To what extent is the transitional period proving difficult for industry and to what extent will the forecasts for natural gas requirements demanded by industry have to be altered?
We are debating this subject in a period of uncertainty. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) mentioned the problem of waste. We are embarking on a huge capital investment programme, on the part of the Gas Council and the oil companies, and the price for further natural gas supplies has not been agreed. It is not often that industrialists or companies go ahead with a project of this immensity without an agreed price having been reached. There have been arguments about whether the price should be 2d. per therm or more or less, and it has been stated in this debate that 2½d. or 3d. would be too expensive.
One feature of these negotiations is that a single large consumer is negotiating with virtually one supplier; that is,

the Gas Council, with the grouping of oil companies supplying gas from the North Sea. Would not it have been better to have had a number of customers buying from a number of suppliers, with, of course, a degree of planning and supervision by Government, rather than the stalemate which now exists? One must wonder whether we are paying too high a price for having a nationalised gas industry.
I understand that permission under the town and country planning legislation has been given for developments at Bacton on the Norfolk coast, and that the construction of the pipeline is going ahead well. However, we still rely to a certain extent on frozen petroleum products coming from elsewhere. A good analysis is provided in "Gas Goes Natural" of how money is spent on consumer services. The production tables in this document show that 791·8 million therms come from refinery gas and liquefied petroleum gas, 409·7 million therms from coke oven gas and 289·1 million therms from other gas, including natural gas. This is part of the breakdown of 4,125 million therms available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to see how any of this arises on this Order.

Mr. Osborn: I have stated the amount of gas which is coming from outside this country, other than North Sea gas, and which is being shipped in the "Methane Princess" and other vessels. It would be no good spending money on new capital projects if it is not known where our raw material is to come from, so we should have an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary about alternative sources of supply of frozen or liquefied petroleum gases and how reliable is the supply from Algeria.
We may find, and I am sure that his Ministry has thought of this, that outside circumstances have made the normal commercial progress somewhat less certain. I am dealing with uncertainty at the moment, so the second aspect on which I want to touch is what certainty we have of continuity of supplies of liquifield petroleum gas or natural gas from other sources until we can harness and secure adequate supplies from the North Sea. We want to know about our supplies from North Africa and elsewhere,


and it is reasonable that I should ask these questions.
I said that I would not prolong my remarks. I have welcomed the growth of the gas grid. I have welcomed the continued and expanding use of natural gas. There are problems to be overcome. As the Minister is allocating considerable sums to the gas industry, it is very reasonable that he should be asked to answer these two main questions, and the, others that have been raised during the debate tonight and on an earlier occasion.

1.56 a.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: This has been a rather long debate on a very small Order—[HON. MEMBERS: "A lot of money."] It all depends on what is termed a lot of money. I have sometimes found that 20s. is a lot of money, and there are some to whom it would be a tremendous amount. But with a huge business such as the Gas Council controls £300 million will probably be too little for its future work—does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) wish to intervene?

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I was just trying to convey to the hon. Gentleman that I did not agree with his remark that £300 million is an insignificant amount. It is an enormous amount.

Mr. Wainwright: I said that £300 million would probably be found to be insufficient for the work to be carried out.

Mr. Taylor: The whole fact of the debate is that £300 million may not be enough for the work to be done. We on this side are asking what work is to be done—and we do not know.

Mr. Wainwright: If we find gas in the North Sea and convey it so far, and do not continue with pipelines and conversions and all the other things, it is like bringing fuel to a house and not having the means of lighting it. I had thought that the hon. Gentleman would have realised that but, if he has not, we had better have a little chat on the subject at some time in the near future.
Like most other hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, I give the Order my wholehearted approval. It is essential, and must be given the full

blessing of the House, so that we can take advantage of the indigenous fuels that have been found in the North Sea. Hon. Members opposite have mentioned what they call a lack of haste in settling the price of natural gas and have pointed out how quickly the Tory Government in their last few months passed the Measure that licensed the various oil companies to search for gas. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) mentioned this, and was quite proud of it. Everybody knows why it was done. It was a political move. The licences were issued just before the 1964 General Election to make certain that the friends of hon. Members opposite had power to search for gas in the North Sea.

Mr. Peyton: I know that the hon. Member loves indulging in these nightmare whimsies, but he must depart from the habit. He knows perfectly well what happened. The Conservative Government, quite openly and above board, allocated licences in accordance with the Act of Parliament. They did not waste time. The point was to get as much exploration carried out as was possible. The Opposition of the day, which the hon. Member supported, made a great fuss and palaver about how they would tear the whole thing up when they came into office. They said that this was a squalid hand-out. The sort of allegation which the hon. Member is making is not worthy of him. We knew that if they got into power the duffers who followed us would waste time and we would get nowhere.

Mr. Wainwright: I do not stress the point too much, but the experience was there and the knowledge was there. Everyone knew that there was a great probability of gas being found in the North Sea. Thank goodness that there is, and that we shall be using it in the very near future. That is the reason for this Order. If we are to take full advantage of the resources of gas in the North Sea, the £300 million which the Order gives the Gas Council power to borrow will not be too large an amount.
Hon. Members opposite have been querying why the money should be granted. We know why they query it and why they have staged a full length debate on this issue, although when the time comes they will support this Order. They should be careful when they criticise


the way in which the money is to be spent, because they are criticising not the Government but those on the Gas Council.

Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Member had been present when I made my speech he would have heard me express my profound admiration for Sir Henry Jones. I went out of my way to praise him. The hon. Member should be careful about what he says is in other people's minds.

Mr. Wainwright: That interjection does not amount to a great deal. It is all right to say to someone, "You are an excellent gentleman; your efficiency is marvellous" and a little later to criticise the actions of that individual. I advise the hon. Member for Yeovil and his hon. Friends to be careful of how they make statements criticising the spending of this £300 million.

Mr. McGuire: I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) not to fall into the error, such as when the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) gave way to me and I took up the point, of making oblique, disparaging remarks about the head of one nationalised industry and praising another. I hope that he will not fall into the error of praising one to the detriment of another.

Mr. Wainwright: Well, of course, each industry has to stand on its own feet—

Mr. Peyton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wainwright: —and we have said that for a long time; but sometimes some persons' feet are on shifting sands and they have got to be supported. Therefore, in so far as they have to be supported, they need extra money—perhaps grants: we know industries run by private enterprise which, from time to time, get grants from the Government.
North Sea gas is an indigenous fuel. We ought, therefore, to make certain it is used to the fullest extent. I am not too happy about the speed of the settlement of the price. I may be dissatisfied with the price when it is settled, but I think it is well nigh time the Government decided what they are going to pay for this gas so that everybody knows, and industry and commercial users can speedily be enabled to have the gas. Why is the Minister not moving so

quickly? What is holding him hack? Is it because there is too great a difference existing between the producers and the Gas Council on this issue? My right hon. Friend ought to look into that matter very quickly and try to arrive at a settlement.
Of course, even if the price of the gas from the producer is to be much below that of that from Algeria, the cost to the consumer will have to be similar to that being charged for other forms of gas now being used. Let us look at Algeria. I think I heard one of the hon. Members opposite mention it I am not certain now which hon. Member it was. It was their Government who, when they were in charge, formed the contracts, and the price we were paying for gas there was 4½d. in Algeria, 6½d. per therm landed price in this country—far greater than what will be paid for North Sea gas. The contract is for—I think—15 years. That will cost the Gas Council a tremendous amount of money. It was a Conservative Government who gave the permission for the contracts to go through. Had it been a Labour Government, then during this debate there would have been strong criticism by hon. Members opposite about these particular contracts. It is no good anybody being wise after the event, and I do not want to criticise those contracts too harshly because at that time we did not know about North Sea gas as we do now, though it had been discovered, and on the Continent was being used in industry.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I do not know whether the hon. Member is criticising the point I put forward. We had this contract. Is this going to be implemented by the other side because of international considerations? Are there certain circumstances in which the Gas Council might be released from that contract? It would be very useful to have the views of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Wainwright: I will come to that point now. It was to have come later in my speech, but I will come to it now.
As things are in the Middle East, as this difference exists between the Arab countries and this country, oil will be cut off; indeed, it is already cut off, as we know. There has been a threat to cut off gas supplies. If Algeria does that, Algeria will break the contract. Though


I cannot speak on behalf of the Government I would say this quite bluntly to the Minister, that he ought to see that a message is conveyed from our Government to the Algerian authorities, that if they do break that contract by not supplying gas we shall take it that we are entitled to break the contract in its entirety, which, I feel sure, would save this country some money. It would save this country money but I would not do it hastily and without careful consideration, because I believe that it is up to all of us, no matter on which side of the House we sit, to try to create a better relationship between the Arab States—not forgetting Israel—and Britain. But if such action were necessary I would take it. In the Middle East—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to pursue that line of argument. We are concerned only with whether the Gas Council should have power to borrow another £300 million.

Mr. Wainwright: I am grateful for that correction. But one must bear in mind that the question of Algerian gas can have some bearing on the amount of money the Gas Council may be able to spend on making certain that North Sea gas is brought to this country.

Mr. Webster: A large installation on Canvey Island processes methane from Algeria. Does the hon. Gentleman feel it possible to reduce the intake of that methane and not proceed with the construction of other such terminals? Would that reduce the borrowing?

Mr. Wainwright: That could be so. One has to consider whether the gas would continue to flow from Algeria and whether the terminal equipment could be be used for North Sea gas. I believe that it could be used for it quite easily. I am sure that the Gas Council will consider all these aspects and that its judgement will be wise.
I should like to have continued the debate. I should not like hon. Members opposite to think that they had said all that could be said about the Order. These borrowing powers will be used for the benefit of the nation. We have also to consider other forms of fuel because it is essential, in granting these powers, to

ensure that we do not allow them to be used to the detriment of the nation in so far as they hurt our other sources of power, coal and nuclear energy. I do not accept what some of my hon. Friends say about nuclear power. Through coordination of gas, coal and nuclear power, with oil coming in at the back, we can make a fuel and power policy for the country.

Mr. Eadie: The mining industry does not object to a 50 million tons coal equivalent. But in The Guardian on 12th June an article dealt with the question of nuclear energy, pointing out that it was more expensive to produce than coal. The point is that coal is an indigenous resource which should be used rather than that we should have to pay such a ridiculous price for nuclear power.

Mr. Wainwright: My hon. Friend must realise that it is not always easy to cut round so many corners to get to the point. I notice that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been watching me keenly and acutely. My hon. Friend said something about gas being wasted. Everything that is consumed can be said to be wasted eventually. The issue here is the economy of the country and the different sources of energy which can be used to the advantage of industry and the users of power.
Nuclear power will, of course, be very important in the future. I do not think that anyone is entitled to retard the developments which are taking place in that form of energy which, in the next two or three decades, will be the cheapest form of fuel throughout the world. The development of nuclear power could be held back for a little in order to save the nation some money, but it must not be retarded so much that it becomes dearer than gas from the North Sea. We have a tremendous lead in nuclear energy and I hope that we will retain it. But it is another form of power which will do great harm to the coal mining industry.
I know that I cannot continue on this line any longer, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member has gone on long enough. He must come back to this Order.

Mr. Wainwright: I was going to say something last Wednesday about the coal mining industry, but I will save it for


the next similar debate which will be on the coal mining industry. We in the industry which I represent wholeheartedly support the endeavours of the Ministry of Power to ensure that gas from the North Sea is brought into the country as soon as possible. We also want to see the Minister use the energy he uses for this to make sure that we have a fuel and power policy, so that each of the sources of power will know the part they have to play. Each of these sources must be used to its fullest extent taking into account the economy of the country, the cheapest form of power, and the social obligations which we have to those whose industry may be taken away. If the Minister bears all this in mind we will give him our wholehearted support.
One hon. Member talked about being aggressive. I am being kind and gentle, but I must warn the Minister that if he does not give the coalmining industry due consideration I will use all the weight I can in criticising him for his failure to look after those people who have made a tremendous contribution in the past to the economy of the country. I give this Order my blessing.

2.20 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) made a most thoughtful and interesting contribution, and I would defend his right to make it, on this vital question of the future of our energy resources. It is a peculiar thought that morning sitttings were devised to save us from having to debate these important matters at this hour of the night.
If I may make one observation on that, it is that, by my calculations, if we had embarked upon a normal afternoon's debate on this very important Order, we would only just have arrived at 8 o'clock. We would have expended the same amount of time as we have expended during the morning and evening sittings, so that my hon. Friends, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have contributed to this debate, in equal measure, have not yet had the equivalent of an ordinary day's debate. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), said that we complained both of morning and midnight. Could we please have an afternoon next time?
I regret the absence of the Minister, who has not attended the second half of this debate at all. Those of us who were on the Steel Bill Committee remember that there were, on occasions, midnight Cabinets, which he had to attend—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The Minister is ill, and that is the reason why he left early.

Mr. Ridley: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for having said that, because I was not aware of it, and it should be on the record, so that those of us who wondered where he was now know.
I should like to add my tributes to the leaders of the gas industry, particularly to Sir Henry Jones, and if I have something critical to say it is a criticism of the Government's handling of this situation and not of the industry, or its leadership, because I believe that this tremendous opportunity in North Sea gas has not been entirely correctly exploited in the last few years.
Before coming to that, I want to make one constituency point. My constituency is very near to Sarsden on the boundaries between Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire, and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us a little more about the procedure for storing gas, because it is obviously of great importance to the inhabitants. It is not so much a question of the danger—I entirely agree that there is no danger whatever from this—but we do not want to have a lot of eyesores and structures cluttering up the surface of the ground. This would be resisted in an area of outstanding natural beauty, such as the Cotswolds. I hope that the greatest attention will be paid to that.
I was interested to read in the document "Gas Goes Natural", on this question of storing gas:
The use of stored liquefied natural gas is gaining wide acceptance in the U.S.A. for peak shaving purposes.
I have heard of shaving by electricity, but I did not know that one could shave by natural gas, and it would be interesting if the Gas Council, at a later date, would tell us how this exciting new dimension works.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Exactly the same thought struck me, but I wondered


whether this was to do with singeing the King of Spain's beard.

Mr. Ridley: I had not thought that we would be getting such things from Spain. We seem to get them from many countries, but not Spain. We will, no doubt, find out in due course about this. The Minister has said that there will be at least 2,000 million cubic feet of gas a day. The Chairman of the Gas Council has said that it might be as much as 4,000 million cubic feet a day. Other people, with knowledge of the situation, feel that it could be even greater still. Whatever the quantity, it is a considerable amount which will be available.
When one considers that at present we use only the equivalent of 1,000 million cubic feet a day, that means that we are to have either double or as much as four times that quantity. Therefore, it would be difficult to find uses for this very large quantity of gas, at least in the near future, although in the long term uses will be developed.
If we are to use anything like this quantity, it will not all go into the ordinary Gas Council networks. It will have to go into power stations and direct to large industrial users, otherwise we will not use it up. Now that we have this wonderful asset, let us plan to use it. This is an occasion for rejoicing, for being jolly. The faces of gloom on the other side of the House throughout the whole debate have been one of the most depressing things about one of the biggest discoveries of the century.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Member is referring to resources. Is he aware, for example, of the statement by Lord Wynne-Jones, head of the chemistry department of Newcastle University, when he expressed his view in the other place that
if we are able to get a rate of production of natural gas corresponding to, let us say, 4,000 million cu. ft. per day"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not quote what was said in another place.

Mr. Eadie: The point was made in that statement that there was a great deal of speculation. If we can get a find like that of the Groningen field in Holland,

which is extremely doubtful, it can last for only about 25 years if we use it, as the hon. Member suggests, at the rate of 4,000 million cu. ft. a day. Therefore, although we on this side welcome it, it is a limited resource.

Mr. Ridley: I have with me a copy of the noble Lord's excellent speech. He sent a copy to me as well as to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), and we are both the wiser for it. I notice that the first page of the noble Lord's speech is devoted almost entirely to the Report of the Ridley Committee on fuel supplies. I cannot help feeling that it needs to be brought up to date.

Mr. McGuire: In the phasing-in and making the fullest use of natural gas, the hon. Member has suggested its use in industry. Would he prefer that oil, which is now used in power stations, should be replaced by natural gas? If he does, he is on a winner. It is easier to convert an oil-burning than a conventional coal power station. Is the hon. Member advancing the argument that we should phase in natural gas and phase out oil in power stations? Economically, this is sound.

Mr. Ridley: I will develop my argument about what we should do. Whatever happens will be as a result of the right decisions being taken because of the interplay of the market and oil prices. I would not be one for planning who should burn what in what appliances.
The point which I was making before those two interruptions, which must necessarily prolong slightly what I have to say, was that this is not an occasion for depression—"revolution" was the word used on two occasions on the last occasion when we had this debate. It is more an occasion for joy and gratification.
Natural gas—methane—is not a secondary fuel such as town gas or electricity. It is a primary fuel, such as crude oil or coal. It can be burnt directly, but it is almost certainly in need of some form of treatment or alteration before it is suitable for any form of consumption in burning appliances.
Hitherto, the Gas Council and the gas boards have been distributors of secondary fuel competing directly with other secondary fuels, and principally electricity. What is now proposed is to


add to the Gas Council's responsibilities the total provision and supply of an extra feedstock. This reinforces my point that methane is a primary fuel, because we talk about feedstocks—naphtha, coal and methane. These are the feedstocks for the secondary distributed energy supply which is done by the gas goards. So, we are going now to give to one of two main competing fuel industries a total monopoly right of supply of a primary source of energy—that is, North Sea gas, or methane from Algeria—and I hope that we shall not buy Algerian methane if we can avoid it without dishonouring our contract.
The Gas Council will become the sole distributor of this North Sea gas as well as of traditional supplies such as of town gas, but this monopoly is no new thing, because for years the Gas Council has discussed whether or not it would be wise for it to undertake the provision of the feedstock supplies. I have no doubt at all that all of these calculations are upset by the fact that we are introducing into our energy market a large and new form of primary energy. The area boards, whose responsibility it is to supply the large number of consumers who are connected to the boards' mains, should be in the position to shop about for the cheapest forms of feedstocks. Some hon. Members may say that one must think of the plant available to the different boards, but some have the plant, and some will have to install new equipment.
The point is that they should not be forced to take methane or to buy natural gas but should be allowed to buy the cheapest feedstocks which are available. That is what should happen, but instead of that we have the Gas Council dictating how much, and where, and when, the area boards shall take of natural gas. There are 12 area boards, and there could be no better opportunity—

The Deputy Speaker: The structure of the area boards cannot possibly arise under the terms of this Order.

Mr. Ridley: I was attempting to point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the best and most economic use of our resources would be made if the area boards were allowed to exercise their own discretion—or, as I have just said, to shop about. We might then introduce competition

into the different parts of the gas supply industry, and the area boards could properly deal with technicalities, practical security, and so on.
There is another grave objection to the course being pursued by the Government, and that is that the Gas Council is the monopoly supplier of methane and will consequently supply not only its own boards in the areas, but will also supply its main rival, the electricity generating industry. To put two competitors into the position where one of them controls the supplies of the raw material of the other is, I suggest, bad business practice, as well as being completely opposed to all known anti-trust legislation in other parts of the world.
I believe that we should take the Gas Council out of North Sea gas. What, then, should we do? The Labour Party has published an account of some meetings of its National Executive at which it was proposed that there should be set up what is called a national hydro-carbons corporation. I am not clear what it is to do, because I have not been able to obtain the report, but, clearly, it is relevant to this discussion.
A national hydro-carbons corporation would go some way to meeting my point. It would be able to take over the marketing of this primary fuel and could sell it to industry direct, to the gas boards or to the electricity boards, depending upon who offered the best price and on whether the supply and demand conditions were right.
However, I should be against such a corporation, because it would seem to me to be putting the public, nationalised industry into a position which could very well be occupied by private industry. The better solution to the problem which has to be faced eventually would be, instead of putting in this extra State body, to put in a whole row of competing wholesale merchants. They exist already in the consortia and the oil companies. The simple device of allowing the consortia and the oil companies to sell direct to customers, be they gas boards, electricity boards, private industry, or any other wouldbe consumer, including export—and why not export our natural gas if we have too much of it for the coal mining lobby; let us export it and make a profit—

Mr. Eadie: How can the hon. Gentleman say that we on this side have said that we have too much of it, when we have tried to point out that there will be only about 50 million tons of coal equivalent taken away in 1970, if we agree with the Gas Council's Report, and when the energy requirements of the nation by that time will be another 100 million tons of coal equivalent? How can it be argued that we on this side see any danger from natural gas? We have repeated this point about half a dozen times.

Mr. Ridley: The fact that the hon. Gentleman has repeated it does not make it sound any more true. However, I shall be dealing with fuel policy and the place of coal in relation to the finds of gas. I will answer the hon. Gentleman's point at length if he will bear with me—

Mr. Archie Manuel: It is very hard to bear.

Mr. Ridley: If we had the set-up which I have described, the price would be determined by the market, and not the cost. That is a state of affairs which would be highly preferable. In addition, there would be no need for all this working out of it and trying to balance one interest against another. There would be no need for this fuel policy, for which we have been waiting for nearly three years, which has been pressed for by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and about which we have had near revolution threatened unless we get it.
Why has it taken nearly three years to produce anything? It is taking so long because no such thing exists. The party opposite must make up its mind about the place of coal in the future. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his argument to the limited purpose of the Order, which is whether the Gas Council shall have power to borrow another £300 million.

Mr. Ridley: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The effect of borrowing this money is undoubtedly that there will be an increase of natural gas upon the market, which will have a deleterious effect upon the position of coal. We have heard sincere and strong sentiments expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite that

the coal industry must be assured for a place in the future, and must have a slice of our energy requirements assured to it.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) said:
That is not to give an absolute priority to coal, but to fit it into fuel policy in the nation's interest and in the interests of the miners.
A little earlier, he had said:
I am interested also in trying to get lower prices by importing this natural gas.
This is the schizophrenic attitude which the party opposite have brought to this whole debate. In the same speeches all of them say they want an assured place for coal and yet they want a minimum price for natural gas. I ask them to ponder how they can possibly achieve both these objectives, because they are not mutually compatible.
If one ensures a slice of the market for coal, and has a very much lower price for gas, the only way one can do this would be to ration the cheap price or insist that all consumers burn at least a quota of dear coal. This would mean not only a return to rationing, but would have the much worse effect that some people would have to burn coal and others gas. It would mean that quite arbitrarily some consumers would be loaded with extra costs while others were allowed cheap fuel, because it is obviously not possible to have two series of firing equipment, one for coal and one for gas, alongside one another in the same industry.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I think the hon. Gentleman ought to take into account what we did say, and what we were not allowed to say. We were not allowed to say what he has said—he was only assuming it. Our main argument on this side is that if coal is going to be reduced in its output then it should be phased out, and the hon. Gentleman should not read into our statements something that was not there.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman succeeded in discussing the Middle East crisis, so I cannot imagine what it is that he was not allowed to include in his speech and that was not within the rules of order. I quote again from the hon. Member for Ince:
That is not to give an absolute priority to the coal, but to fit it into fuel policy in the


nation's interest and in the interests of the miners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 1016–18.]
This inevitably means ensuring for coal a bigger slice of the market than it would otherwise have. This is a perfectly respectable policy for hon. Members opposite to have—I have no quarrel with them having this policy; but I insist on pointing out to them that it is not compatible with their demand for a cheap gas price.

Mr. McGuire: The argument that has been advanced the other way, not to have a cheap natural gas landed price, means that one would have a very high one and this would favour the oil companies. There is nothing incompatible in our view that we should have a fuel policy to take care of not merely the cost of producing coal but the social cost as well, and at the same time have natural gas delivered at a proper price.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We really cannot pursue this debate on this Order.

Mr. Ridley: I have made my point two or three times, and I do not want to have to make it again at this late hour, but the more the hon. Gentleman repeats his arguments to me, the more I am tempted to repeat mine to him.
I have shown that there is no need for the Government to fix any price, and this is where they get into their dilemma because they have insisted on taking unto themselves this arbitrary determination of a price which would have been far better fixed by the supply and demand position in the market. They can affect the market by taxes, subsidies and by paying the social cost of the coal miners, but once they take arbitrary powers to fix the prices they will, as sure as day follows night, fix them wrong. What are the consequences if they fix the price too high—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that this question of the fixing of prices arises on this power to borrow another £300 million.

Mr. Ridley: I only wish to refer to the remarks of the Minister on 7th June, at column 981, when he devoted some considerable space to the question of fixing a price for North Sea gas. I thought that it would be in order to touch briefly on this because I think that

it would be better not to lend the £300 million to the Gas Council if the price is determined in the way that is suggested.
If we put the price too high, we will not have enough gas consumption. We will have a smaller market than we might otherwise have, because it will not be sufficiently competitive. We will not succeed in bringing down energy prices, and we will have a revolution from hon. Gentlemen opposite who say that the oil companies will make too much money. It is therefore clearly undesirable to fix the price too high.
If we fix it too low, we will dry up further exploitation and exploration for gas in the North Sea. The oil companies will turn dejectedly away and look for gas in other people's territorial waters. Secondly, we will knock hell out of the coal industry. Gas will flood the energy market. People will convert wholesale, and the momentum of change will be so great that the coal industry will take an even bigger knock than hon. Gentlemen opposite fear. We will have a revolution from hon. Gentlemen opposite—they have threatened it—on account of the declining fortunes of the coal industry.

Mr. McGuire: At what price would you fix it?

Mr. Ridley: I am glad that I am protected from sedentary invitations of that hostile nature. I have no intention of fixing a price, nor, I imagine, are you Mr. Deputy Speaker, since the remark was addressed to you.
I have great sympathy for the Minister. He is faced with the judgment of Solomon. He cannot please both halves of his party, and whatever tiny error he makes, either too high or too low, in fixing the price he will make a major economic blunder. This is the argument for letting the market determine the price. Not all the 1,729 civil servants in the Ministry of Power working overtime for the 15 months they have spent on this problem will find the right price.
I therefore suggest that even at this late hour, a quarter to three, the Parliamentary Secretary, would do well to accept my advice and allow the oil explorers to sell the natural gas directly to anyone


who wants it, be he State or private individual, be he gas, or eletricity, or industrial board of any sort.
That would have one great advantage. Not only would it determine prices and avoid the Minister being put in this invidious position, but it would have the effect of breaking up the monolithic structure of the Gas Council and electricity boards and it would make them compete, make them think for themselves, and make them behave as highly competitive animals. In this way, hon. Gentlemen would eventually achieve what the whole House has asked for throughout the debate, lower gas prices. It is competition which will achieve this, not Socialism.

2.48 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We have had two bites at, and a lengthy debate on, what is by any standards an important Order. I want to reiterate firmly the strong objections which have been raised from this side of the House that the Government set this Order down for debate at a morning sitting and found it necessary to pursue the matter into the watches of the night and the small hours of the morning. This subject has aroused wide interest on both sides of the House, and, judging by some of the language which has been used, particularly by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is one of deep controversy. To have treated it as though it were a minor, non-controversial Order seems to have been a gross misjudgment.
I hope that when the Government are considering Orders of this nature, which come up from time to time in relation to all the nationalised industries, they will recognise that they provide for the House one of the very few occasions during the year when the House can deal with the problems facing the nationalised industries fairly fully within the rules of order, and that the matter should be debated in the normal debating hours of the House—in the afternoon and evening.
Adverting to the question of controversy, I want to take up briefly a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I, too, was struck by the curiously ambivalent attitude which some hon. Members opposite adopted to the

question of a policy for phasing-in natural gas in terms of our fuel economy.
I was interested to read in The Times this morning how a group of hon. Members, a number of whom have spoken in the debate—I thought that they had set themselves up as a national fuel efficiency study group, but that is a list of anonymous nuclear scientists whom they are trying to contact by advertising in The Times—including the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edward Wainwright)—are all pursuing that hare, and they have pursued this one, with other hon. Members, tonight.
My hon. Friend described their attitude as schizophrenic. That is the only word which will describe it. On 7th June the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) exhibited this to a marked degree when, at column 1008, he threatened the Minister, saying that
If the price ultimately amounts to anything like 2½d. a therm, there will be the biggest row on this side of the House since 1964, and quite rightly.
Later, he went on to say, of the Minister:
He will not last long in the job if his reputation is so tarnished that we no longer have faith in negotiations of this kind. We would regard anything like the rumoured figure above 2½d. a therm as a complete sell-out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 1008.]
Yet elsewhere hon. Members opposite were demanding that this should be phased in with coal.
The attitude came to its most extreme and astonishing form in the speech of the hon. Member for Chesterfield he said:
While I am in favour of bringing it ashore as quickly as possible, it should be phased into our fuel economy in a proper manner.
The Minister interrupted him, and then the hon. Member went on:
What I am saying is that once it is exploited and brought ashore it can then be turned off."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 995.]
One has the most astonishing proposition that hon. Members opposite appear to recognise it as desirable, in the interests of the national economy, that North Sea gas should be exploited as rapidly as possible, but they cannot accept, as a corollary, that that means that the stuff should be used, burnt and sold to industrial consumers, domestic consumers and


even, for certain purposes, for the nationalised fuel industry.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: I was using that analogy with the coal industry. I said that we could not turn off a pit as we could turn off a tap, but that we could turn off natural gas to ensure that it was phased properly into the system. That was my only point.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his explanation. It was not wholly clear from the passage I have just read. If I have done him an injustice, I hope that he will accept my apology. It appeared to me that, running like a thread through the speeches of hon. Members opposite—we had it again from the hon. Member for Dearne Valley this evening—was the suggestion that they recognise that this gas must be exploited, but are reluctant to recognise that a major part of this exploitation will take the form of saying to our fuel suppliers, "You must take the form and substance of existing sources of energy." It is preposterous to imagine otherwise.
The Minister, who has a hard enough task reconciling the conflicting objectives of different interests, was threatened in no uncertain terms by a group of hon. Members, whose sincerity no one doubts but who are woefully misguided. The Times tells us that this group is now chasing the hare of extravagance on the nuclear programme which might be more useful than inflicting on the Minister and the Gas Council their Alice in Wonderland logic. The Minister is acting rationally and sensibly, and I hope that the wild threats from behind him will not deflect him.
I detected and deplored evidence of marked antipathy to the oil industry by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Dearne Valley referred to oil "coming in the back", as though it was an extra make-weight. In view of that industry's technological skill, exploration and enterprise in this country—British Petroleum is half Government-owned—and in Western Europe and America, it is nonsense to imagine that it can be relegated to a minor position in our fuel economy—

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: rose—

The Chairman: Order. We cannot pursue a discussion on the oil industry now.

Mr. Jenkin: I am prepared to debate it with the hon. Gentleman any time. But I deplore the attitude.
This gas pricing is essential to penetrate the market which the Order presupposes and when "Gas Goes Natural" spelled out in detail, and within the existing framework we are bound to accept that the price should be low enough to penetrate the industrial as well as the domestic market—where is the benefit otherwise?—but not so low as to inhibit exploration. I take seriously the statements of North Sea consortia that, if the Minister fixes as low a price as some which have been mentioned, when they complete their contracts they will invest in oil elsewhere rather than in our indigenous natural gas.
The Minister must fix a reasonable price and these must be his main considerations and I am happy to leave it to him. It is hard enough. He knows the facts and will have eventually to perform his statutory duty if agreement cannot be reached.
I now turn to the industry's capital expenditure programme, of which this £300 million will form part. The first item in Table 6 on page 14 of "Gas Goes Natural" refers to production plant and we see that £205 million is budgeted over the next five years for this purpose. The explanation for this appears on page 15, but I will not delay hon. Members by detailing the facts. The Minister of Power referred to this subject briefly in the debate of 7th June, when he said:
 … investment in production plant is being subjected … to very special scrutiny, but the bulk of the investment is already Committed".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1967, Vol. 747, c. 984.]
Is this so? The bulk of £205 million seems an enormous amount to spend over the next five years; that is, if it really has been committed. And is this naphtha or oil based plant for making town gas, and how much of this amount will be spent on plant which, on any view of the position, is bound to have a very short life? The penetration by natural gas, which, it is estimated, will have taken over almost the whole of the market within 10 years, will displace almost all the existing sources of town gas. To now spend £205 million on plant which will be almost useless within 10 years requires more than "careful scrutiny". It needs very solid justification indeed.
In a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) last week, the Parliamentary Secretary made an interesting comment. My hon. Friend had asked
 … how much … he estimated sales of gas to the domestic sector will increase … how much of this increase will be in natural gas supplied direct to consumers at 1,000 calorific value, and reformed before distribution at lower calorific value. … 
The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
 … the objective is to convert to direct supply in such a way as to obviate the need for further town gas manufacturing plant".[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 102.]
That may be the objective, but we are told in "Gas Goes Natural" that £205 million is being budgeted for the next five years for this purpose. We are, therefore, entitled to be given a fuller explanation of how the Gas Council intends to spend this money and the justification for this expenditure.
I come to the growth assumptions. A study of the figures in "Gas Goes Natural" reveals that the Gas Council is anticipating an astonishing growth in demand in the next five years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash pointed out, it is banking on a huge upsurge in domestic octane, with domestic sales doubling in the next five years. What is the basis for this assumption? Is it being assumed that, quite suddenly, people will demand much higher standards of domestic heating than they have been prepared to pay for up to now?
Does it assume a widespread substitution of existing forms of energy; that the pricing structure will be such as virtually to compel consumers to turn over from electricity to gas for their peak load heating? Many people would welcome such a change because the peak load demand for electricity is an expensive demand to supply in view of the equipment that is needed to supply that heavy demand for only short periods during the year.
We have been told little about future gas prices. I regard the Minister's view as a dismal one because when asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) whether prices would come down, the Minister of Power replied:
Without wishing firmly to commit any successor of mine, I would certainly hope that

they would not rise as rapidly in the future as they have done in the past".-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 986.]
That is carrying caution too far.
One recognises that heavy capital expenditure will have to be met. The Minister has said, and we accept, that in a period of rapid expansion it is right that a higher proportion of the finance should be found from external rather than from internal sources. The question is: is it right that part of this should be financed by higher prices? I cannot believe that any private firm, facing a rapidly expanding market and hoping to build on it in order to move into a very much higher level of overall sales, would start by putting up the prices of its product. I cannot conceive of anything more calculated to frustrate the desires of industry to achieve the penetration it is hoping to get.
If the gas industry is to penetrate the market to the extent envisaged in the Blue Book, it seems to me that it must depend on keeping prices stable, or virtually stable. This may involve taking a somewhat longer view of the financial obligations of the industry, and I would venture to suggest and this is not and would not be an improper thing for the Minister to consider.
In this context, I would draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to Report No. 7 of the Prices and Incomes Board, to which reference has already been made.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that my hon. Friend will not substitute the judgment of the Prices and Incomes Board here for something which has only with great pains and difficulty been established as agreed criteria for the nationalised industries. He seems to be going very near throwing over one of the very few criteria for disciplines there are.

Mr. Jenkin: I accept entirely the value of the financial target as an essential objective for the management of the industry. The only point I question is that when an industry is in a phase of very rapid expansion, very heavy capital expenditure and rising, as it were, over a short period of time from one plateau to another plateau, it is reasonable for the industry to comply with the target each year.
I was about to draw attention to that part of paragraph 79 of the Board's Report in which the Board adverts to the financial obligation in relation to the desirability of maintaining price stability. It states:
We are therefore of the view that for the future an attempt should be made to secure greater financial and managerial discipline by an attempt to combine an appropriate target of return with some requirement with regard to costs.
And:
In the case of the gas industry, where a new technology is making for falling costs, we consider that the requirement should be more stringent: it should be required to meet its target rate of return, including a higher rate on new investment, without increasing prices even though costs arising from outside itself may have increased.
That was introducing a new factor into the financial targets which the Minister should set the industry, and it was reported on as long ago as December, 1965.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House what progress has been made towards fulfilling the recommendation there made by the Prices and Incomes Board. I am entirely at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) in believing that we do not want to substitute the judgment of the Board for any other form of financial discipline that has worked. Indeed, some of the Board's recommendations have been plainly silly but, on the whole, this one does not seem to be silly. To impose a financial obligation of itself is not everything, but when dealing with a monopoly industry which, in the last resort, can charge what it likes, and combine with it an obligation to maintain stability of prices seems worth exploration. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what steps have been taken towards exploring this suggestion for the fuel industries—it refers to electricity as well. This is absolutely crucial to the spending of this £300 million.
If the gas industry is to say that because it is spending more capital moneys it must, therefore, have higher prices charged to the consumer, what sort of sense does that make to a country which was told only a few weeks ago that because the electricity industry had over-budgeted its capital expenditure the consumer must pay more for electricity? It is a case of heads I win, tails you lose.

The consumer is looking for at least stable prices and is entitled to expect falling prices in this industry when one considers the advance from the days of low temperature carbonisation to present methods of production. The Minister has to impose this target on the industry and to initiate talks. Is the industry waiting for an invitation from the Ministry of Power on this obligation?
My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash and other hon. and right hon. Friends made valuable comments and have asked a number of pertinent questions. We are entitled to have answers to them before we pass this Order. The Order is one which involves a big sum of money, although the Minister described it as a stop-gap and no doubt there will be another Bill next year. The industry is going through a period of rapid change and transition. The House is entitled to an explanation, which has not so far been given, of the circumstances surrounding the Order. I agree with what was said in the Economist on 10th June. I read a short comment on the first half of the debate:
What is very badly needed is the full-scale fuel debate (not a sly morning sitting like Wednesday's) now apparently due for late July. And a good meaty White Paper, which is sadly only due for the early autumn. Without such a debate it is really very hard for Parliament or anyone else to approve extra borrowing powers for the nationalised power industries.
We cannot have a full scale debate yet, but we are entitled to an answer.

Mr. T. I. Iremonger: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

3.12 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): This debate has gone so wide that it will be extremely difficult for me to deal with all the points put by hon. Members, particularly as so many have related to matters which come under the fuel policy review now being undertaken by the Department. I hope I shall be forgiven, therefore, if I do not deal with all the points hon. Members have raised. I shall do my best to deal with as many as possible. For the rest, so far as they are matters to be dealt with under the


fuel policy review—this is pertinent to the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)—we must await the statement the Minister has promised he will make before the Summer Recess and the subsequent White Paper which will be published before the end of the year, and on which there will be major debates in the House.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend mean that he will not even give any views on how the Department is thinking? Do we have to wait, and wait, and wait?

Mr. Freeson: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the comments I shall make on various points raised in the debate. I repeat that I cannot deal with all the points raised both tonight and on the morning of last Wednesday week, which relate in a major way to the fuel policy review. There is just not time available.
A great deal of reference was made last Wednesday week and again this evening, particularly in the latter part of the debate, to the question of the future price of gas. It was understandable that when the electricity price increases were announced a short while ago many people were asking what was to be the future of gas price levels.
I have to state, as has already been said in the debate, that the industry is passing through a period of very heavy borrowing, the level of which has increased. The Order before us deals directly with this point. This coincides with rather low net earnings in the industry. It is a matter of judgment as to how long the industry can continue to wait for earnings to recover and how far it is right for it to saddle itself with avoidable debt in future years. There are limits to this and one cannot preclude the possibility of revisions in price levels. One can say this of any industry.
One has to look at the industry—and this was indicated in the exchanges a few minutes ago—against the background of the financial incentives set for it, and whatever its future objectives may be must be considered, of course, with the fuel policy review. One cannot go beyond what the Minister said the other day, that as a result of the changes—of

the second revolution, if hon. Members like—going on, and continuing to go on, in the gas industry, we can expect a greater restraint of price increases in the future than in the past.
This was not a cynical remark to make. If one examines it one realises that one can look forward to a period in which the level of real prices, in relation to the economy as a whole, will be that much more satisfactory; they will not rise so quickly. One cannot be more specific than that at this stage. It has been the position in the past with both the electricity and gas industries, and one can say that there is an improved possibility, with the arrival of natural gas, for the future.

Mr. Ridley: How does the hon. Member square that with the 10 per cent. on electricity prices?

Mr. Freeson: I was referring to the industry over quite a number of years. It remains a fact, whatever feelings there may be about the announcement made by the Ministry on electricity tariffs recently, that, I think it is broadly correct to say, the increase in price levels in the electricity industry has been something like 60 per cent. of the level of price increases generally over 20 years, since 1948. It is in that sense that one may refer to real levels being an improvement over the rest of the economy.
Much reference was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) to the question of a uniform price for natural gas. It is not the first time, as he said, that he has questioned us on this matter. There will doubtless be pleasure in his heart when I tell him that it is proposed to supply natural gas to area boards at uniform prices—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Hear, hear. Splendid. Well done.

Mr. Freeson: —subject only to load factor.
This does not imply a departure from the general principle that prices should reflect costs. The only variable will be transmission costs since the gas to and from all sources is necessarily pooled. Investigations have shown that because gas transmission costs are low differences in bulk supply costs to area boards will


be too small to justify straining to differentiate prices for gas coming from several sources of supply to many bulk supply points. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that I am as well received in the rest of my remarks.
The hon. Gentleman also dealt with the question of postalisation—uniform prices generally. He asked whether my right hon. Friend intended to review the differentials in gas prices throughout the country. This subject has been discussed before, with the hon. Gentleman in particular. As I have said, natural gas will reduce differences in costs between the areas but varying distribution costs and load factors will remain.
While such a policy might benefit a particular area, such as Scotland, it does not follow that the introduction of postalisation would benefit the development areas at the expense of the prosperous areas. Our calculations indicate that, were there to be postalisation, some of the more prosperous areas would get a reduction in prices whilst prices in some development areas would go up. It is not as simple as, understandably, the hon. Gentleman makes out. One can commend his advocacy for Scotland, but more than one development area or region is involved. It would not follow that all would benefit as he wishes Scotland to benefit from such a policy.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) referred to the cost of conversion. He feared that it would prove higher than the £400 million estimated by the Gas Council and which the Ministry has quoted, chiefly because of the large expansion which was assumed in the domestic market and in the sale of appliances. He put down a Question about this and I hope that he is satisfied with the reply, which shows that, as from 1st September, 1966, all gas-burning appliances put on the market are readily convertible to the use of natural gas by a small adjustment. Thus, the present increase in appliance sales should not affect future conversion costs as estimated by the Gas Council.

Mr. Michael Alison: But even a small adjustment will entail a visit to the premises to do the work. The Minister has talked about there being 13 million consumers and he is planning

for a larger number by 1970 because of the new houses and the new appliances involved by then.

Mr. Freeson: In considering growth in domestic consumption it is not just a matter of the number of domestic consumers but the use to which they put gas in their new homes compared with the old ones. But the point the hon. Gentleman has raised—the home visit to adjust the appliance—has been taken into account in the figures estimated by the Gas Council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) raised the question of the cost of conversion per consumer. He suggested that this may be underestimated. One must bear in mind that the Canvey Island conversion was a pioneer scheme. It does not follow that the cost of £40 per consumer experienced there will necessarily repeat itself. Indeed, the Gas Council estimates that it will not be repeated as a result of experience elsewhere.
A number of hon. Members have queried the level of self-financing of the industry. On current expectations—which, of course, are open to uncertainties, including the actual level of future investment—the self-financing ratio should be about one-fifth in 1968–69 and average about one-third over the five years from 1967–68 to 1971–72, working out at one half at the end of that period.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) asked whether we should encourage the industry to go into the private market for raising its money for capital expenditure. I do not want to pursue this at any great length. The subject is not as simple as he suggested. It is a complex matter to decide the balance between Treasury borrowing for a nationalised industry or other public service and the raising of capital on the market. Anyone with extensive experience of local government will know that there are just as many probems facing local authorities raising most of their money on the private market as there are for the nationalised industries which obtain their money from the Treasury.
There has been discussion on the different financial objectives and the cost of electricity in Scotland. In his speech which started on 7th June, and ended


with great gusto tonight, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cathcart made considerable reference to this. He said that nothing had been done since Report No. 7 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. He suggested that this was an urgent matter for the gas industry in Scotland because of the different objectives given by the Minister of Power and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
What aroused the concern of the Board was not the difference in the financial objectives, but the difference in the degree of urgency attaching to the fulfilment of them. Having noted in earlier paragraphs that the Scottish Gas Board's objective was a gross return of 10·9 per cent. and that of the South of Scotland Electricity Board was 12·5 per cent., the Board went on, in paragraph 51:
We have no reason to believe that an attempt by the Scottish Gas Board to move towards a rate of return consistent with its financial objective should lead to an uneconomic distribution of resources provided that the South of Scotland Electricity Board is also required to meet its financial obligations.
Since the publication of that Report there have been discussions between the Secretary of State and the Scottish electricity boards about financial objectives. Various occurrences such as variations in the price of coal and the introduction of the freeze last July, have delayed progress with these discussions. This answers the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford. The discussions on the financial objectives in relation to the Board's report are being resumed with a view to agreeing new financial objectives consistent with the Government's prices and incomes policy. This does not mean that this matter will not be dealt with as part of the general review of fuel policy.
One cannot separate financial objectives of the industry from other aspects of fuel policy with which we are concerned, and consideration will have to be given to this. We are concerned for the most part with maintaining financial objectives; studying their validity, where they need to be changed or adhered to, and how they can be achieved. I can give only a general assurance that this is in our minds as much as it is in the minds of hon. Members.

Mr. Peyton: I do not want to make it more difficult for the hon. Member, but it seems astonishing that he should come here to defend a proposal to give a £300 million loan to the gas industry and that all he can say is that all these matters will come out in the wash in the fuel policy for which we have been waiting for years.

Mr. Freeson: I said that we were seeking to maintain financial objectives as at present laid down. I went on to say that one cannot separate issues of this kind from the major aspects of fuel policy and that the question of financial objectives will be one of the matters to be studied in this connection. In the meantime, we are as much concerned as other hon. Members with maintaining the objectives, to the best of our ability, against the background of the freeze decisions of July of last year, and the Prices and Incomes Board report.
Reference was made to the sales of gas. Not only did we have questions from the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, but also from the hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford, about the expected growth in consumption, and differences in the figures that the Gas Council and the Ministry have been quoting as to the level of natural gas, which will be available by 1970 or soon afterwards.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash asked whether gas sales had been affected as a result of the freeze, as have electricity sales. I am glad to say that gas sales have retained a very good buoyancy, and have not suffered substantially by the July measures. Industrial sales were affected by a slowing-down in the economy, but domestic sales are buoyant and the final estimate of the 1966–67 sales increase over the previous year is now put at nearly 9 per cent.—very close to the figure forecast a year ago, though well above the estimate made at the time that the Borrowing Powers Act was going through Parliament in 1965. We see no reason, on present evidence, to suppose that industry will not continue to attain or exceed its sales targets.

Sir Douglas Glover: Are those constant prices or are they taking account of inflation?

Mr. Freeson: I was not speaking of prices, I was speaking of growth in gas


sales by the industry. The question was whether, in the past year the industry had been hit by the economic position and the answer is, "No."
I go on to deal with the question of gas sales to industrial consumers, raised by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, and others, all of whom stressed the need to go ahead with sales of natural gas to industry, especially in the light of lessons to be learnt from the Middle East crisis. I will not go into the various matters raised in connection with the Middle East crisis, except to say, as so many Members referred to Algiers, that at this stage the position is obscure. I am not in a position to say what it will be in the near future. As regards the cutting-off of supplies from Algiers—

Mr. Eadie: This is a very important point. Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the supply is stopped?

Mr. Freeson: I cannot go beyond what I have already said, that the position is obscure. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the position in the Middle East, and matters arising from it, is so delicate that it is not something to be bandied about freely on an occasion like this. I am trying to be Quite serious—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not giving way on this point. I have made it perfectly clear that I am not going beyond what I have already said.

Mr. Ridley: Would the Parliamentary Secretary give way?

Mr. Freeson: On this point? No. I have already said, and I say it for the second or third time, that I cannot go beyond what I have already said—that the position is obscure. There is nothing further that I can say about the threatened cut-off in Algiers.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I will not press the hon. Gentleman on the immediate position, and the immediate interruption of supplies, but I think that a number of his hon. Friends, and certainly a number of hon. Members on this side of the House, have asked what was the intention with regard to contracts. Was it intended to terminate these contracts as soon as possible, because if it had been found that Algeria had unilaterally terminated the contract, would advantage be taken to

regard all of the contracts as rescinded? That is a somewhat different question.

Mr. Freeson: It is very closely connected, but, again, it is not something that I wish to pursue. It is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to raise on another occasion, if he thinks fit.

Mr. Ridley: rose—

Mr. J. H. Osborn: rose—

Sir D. Glover: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is obviously not giving way, even to three hon. Members.

Mr. Freeson: Turning to the industrial consumer sales of natural gas, I can say that the Department, together with the industry, is studying the possible implications of any prolonged interruptions in supplies of feedstocks and natural gas from abroad, again in the wider context of the energy market as a whole. Certainly, it is the policy, Middle East crisis or not, to avoid excessive dependence on imported fuels wherever this is possible. This aspect comes right into the centre of any consideration of natural gas policy and its absorption into the economy.
It would, however, be quite wrong for any hon. Member to assume that sales to industrial users will increase at only half the rate of sales to domestic users, as suggested by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash a week or so ago. Although the absolute increase in domestic sales will be the greatest, the rate of increase in industrial sales will be as fast or even faster. It is rarely possible to separate domestic from industrial consumers. They will all be fed by one system and all must be converted from town gas to natural gas supply. In the blue booklet "Gas Goes Natural", the Gas Council's industrial sales estimates specifically exclude any sales to bulk consumers or the electricity industry for load balancing.
It was said that the chemical industry could use about 3,000 million therms by 1970 if the price were right. This would be for fuel uses as well as for petrochemical feedstock. One has to be careful about the use of these figures. They can be easily misused. In such applications, natural gas must compete with other fuels, including coal, although the gas should command a premium value. The


scope for expansion in these markets is being closely studied by the industry and is being watched by the Department.
A number of points were made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who is not with us tonight, who complained bitterly and eloquently about the failure to accurately forecast levels of investment in the gas industry and that the levels forecast in 1965 were about half those now proposed. It is true that investment was underestimated in that year, but the circumstances were slightly different. The point needs to be made, because several hon. Members have touched on it, that nobody could have known at that time what would be the level of potential natural gas supply. This was discovered only later after the investment forecast had been made.
I will go quickly through a number of other points which have been made in the latter part of the debate tonight. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford queried the rate of industrial consumption of natural gas assuming that it is available at the beachhead to the extent of 2,000 million cubic feet per day by 1970 or soon after. There is no question that this is an area of close concern by the industry and, of course, the Department. A major job will be involved particularly in the next four or five years to absorb the natural gas rapidly as it becomes quickly available to that level.
The position, broadly, is that about 1,500 million cubic feet per day of the 2,000 million cubic feet per day will replace existing town gas and allow for a rate of growth of about 12 per cent. per annum. That is the estimated growth. It is the remaining 500 million cubic feet per day which must be absorbed as rapidly as possible into the bulk user market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said, this was technically a wasteful method. It could often be a wasteful method of using natural gas in power stations and the like.
Even where that is so in some industries, it is economically essential that the industry absorbs into the economy the natural gas which will be available, because it will obviously have a marked impact on the price negotiations which are taking place. I do not have to

reiterate that point. I believe that the hon. Member for West Derby also referred to underground storage, as did the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). The storage project at Sarsden is going through its final feasibility tests, and we shall have to see where else this procedure might be applied.
The question of leaving the North Sea gas raises the whole issue of the best methods of storage at peak periods and, having reached a decision on that, we shall have to consider how best, technically, to supply it to consumers.
Time is getting on. This has been a long debate, and I would end by saying that most of the broad points of debate raised during tonight and last Wednesday week, must be considered as part of the fuel policy review. There will be a debate before the Summer Recess, and there will be the White Paper. There will be ample opportunity for this debate to be continued, with all the valid points about the relationship of the gas industry to other industries, and the related matter of overall fuel policy, about which the Minister himself will speak.

Sir D. Glover: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I would say that I have no wish to delay the House, but he has not given a very satisfactory answer to the points about the long-term contract for Algerian gas. Because of the international situation there is the question of whether we are going to continue or whether, because relations are broken off, we shall get out of this contract.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Member may not consider that I have given a satisfactory answer, but I have said more than once that I do not propose to discuss this specific subject this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL

Adjourned debate on Second Reading [12th June] further adjourned till this day.

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That for the remainder of the present Session, Standing Order No. 63 (Special procedure for Scottish estimates) shall have effect as if the word 'twelve' were substituted for the word 'six' in line eight.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Mr. Roland Moyle and Mr. Paul B. Rose discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Select Committee appointed by the Lords on Consolidation, &c., Bills; Mr. Peter Archer and Mr. John Lee added.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Orders of the Day — COMMUNITY SERVICE (YOUNG VOLUNTEERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I apologise for speaking at this late hour, but if we can all bring our minds to our purpose here tonight—although I admit that it may be difficult at this hour of the morning—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must leave the Chamber quietly.

Mr. Judd: We are concerned with democratic procedures, which demand essentially a partnership between Government and governed. In working out this partnership, we are concerned with giving an increasing number of the population an opportunity to live fully, rather than simply to exist. In living fully, we are concerned with giving them the opportunity to come to grips with their environment.
In trying to fulfil this objective, we are confronted with the pace and complexity of modern life, with its increasing specialisation, which demands that for people to succeed in their lives and careers, they need to know more and more about less and less. Some sociologists suggest that there is an increasing tendency these days for people to become simply extensions of the machines on which they work.
Our modern society leads to a remoteness of decision making, it leads to social attitudes which refer to "we" and "they" and regarding social problems, whether national or international, as "their" problems, rather than "ours". If we are concerned with this fragmentation in our society, we have to look at the problem of combatting it, particularly for the young. How are we to extend the vision, experience and feeling of participation of the young non-professional? How are we to enable the young specialist to set his knowledge in a wider perspective?
In looking for solutions, we would all want to put on record our admiration for the work of the traditional youth service. But, in analysing the work of that service, we can see that it has been inclined to underline the passive rôle of the individual, with the emphasis being placed on providing services for youth, rather than demanding service of youth.
One of the most exciting and dramatic developments of the past five years has been a change in this pattern, a breakaway from the traditional concept of youth service, a change in emphasis from service to youth to service by young people. It is an emphasis with nothing passive or artificial about it, with an increasing tendency in young people to take real responsibility in society. We have seen this in programmes of service both at home and abroad.
In looking at the historical evolution of this pattern, we see that much of the pioneer work has been done in this country by International Voluntary Service, the British branch of Service Civil International, with its programme of long-term specialist work by young people in different continents, its large programme of shorter-term residential community service projects, and an increasingly large amount of regular neighbourhood service, particularly at weekends, by local groups in urban centres throughout the country.
This pioneer work, which started as early as the 1930s in Britain, has more recently, in the post-war era, been taken up by the International Service Department of the United Nations Association, by the Friends Work Camps Committee, and, even more recently, by bodies such as Voluntary Service Overseas, Toc H, the National Union of Students, the


Catholic Institute of International Relations, Community Service Volunteers, Jewish Youth Voluntary Service, Task Force, and other similar organisations at the national level.
The work of organisations operating at national level has been backed strongly by countless local initiatives. In my own constituency of Portsmouth, there is Youth Action, and there is a similar organisation in York. There are others in such areas as Merseyside, Wirral, and Cardiff. Not only do we see this sort of development in out of school activity. It is becoming an increasingly important part of school life. In all sorts of schools throughout the country, there are community service units.
In looking at the publicity given to community service by young people, we are bound to accept that the most dramatic publicity has gone to those working abroad, particularly in the developing countries. However, I want to concentrate tonight on the home front. I want to concentrate on it for two reasons. First, of course, because it is the province of the Department of Education, and, secondly, because it will always be on the home front that the larger number of young people will have their opportunity to serve.
In looking to the evidence of this dynamic expansion, I would like to refer to my own personal experience with one of the organisations to which I have already referred, International Voluntary Service. During the past few years there has been a development from 12 to 150 residential community service projects of two to three weeks or more each with upwards of 15 volunteers and sometimes with as many as 30 participating.
In I.V.S. there has been an increase during the same last few years from seven local units undertaking regular neighbourhood community service to getting on for 100 such units throughout the country now providing several thousand volunteer weekends of service in any one year. And that is just one of the organisations operating in this field. Other organisations have been developing at very much the same pace. The growth is not simply in terms of the number of volunteers, but also in the scope of the work tackled. Traditionally, the emphasis in organisations such as

these was on unskilled manual work, but more recently they have become involved in exciting new experiments in relatively sophisticated auxiliary social work.
If we look at practical examples we shall see that while originally young volunteers were concerned mainly in putting in water supplies, building roads in remote rural areas, or demolishing obsolete buildings they later undertook, in addition, such projects as the decoration of individual homes for the elderly, and now besides all this they are increasingly involved, for example, in manning holiday centres for the elderly, where they will completely care for the elderly, from getting them up in the morning, dressing them and feeding them, to taking them on excursions, entertaining them and putting them to bed.
We also see volunteers working in mental hospitals which, quite frequently, have only fairly recently emerged from the dark age of the asylum; such volunteers going in to work with the patients are not only improving the physical evironment of the hospitals, but, far more important, are bridging the gap between the life inside the walls of the hospital and the world outside.
We have also seen even more interesting experiments in which young people in rehabilitation units at recidivist prisons, and youngsters from borstals and approved schools, are given the opportunity of participating in service with other young volunteers.
In all this there has been value for a cross-section of people concerned. There is, first, the educative value for the volunteers participating, something far richer than would have been possible in any degree of academic discussion. There is also the benefit for the under-privileged, discovering for the first time perhaps in weeks, months, years, that ordinary young people want to do something practical about their hardship rather than just sentimentalising about it, and the experience of finding that it is not only the professional social worker who cares. Then there is the benefit to social and medical workers, having young people who come along for a while to share the load they are expected to carry on behalf of society.
There is also sometimes a catalytic effect for the community as a whole. Let


me give one example. I know of a residential centre for elderly ladies which was created at what had formerly been a Poor Law institution. The first job given to young volunteers who went there to lend their assistance was to knock down a high, forbidding wall surrounding this institution and lower it from its original 12 feet to a more tolerable three feet so that the old ladies could look out on the community outside.
No sooner has this been started than a local "blimp" came rushing to the centre and told the superintendent it was disgusting, and that this was ruining the whole approach to the town. No one would now be able to enter the town without seeing the eyesore of the old Poor Law institution on the outskirts. The superintendent had difficulty in restraining his mirth, because this was his objective. No longer could the local community conveniently forget about this institution on its outskirts, and as a result of this work undertaken by the young volunteers the community has, in fact, taken an active interest in that centre. It has become involved, and there is a much greater and closer bond between the community and the elderly people finishing their lives in that centre than might otherwise have been possible.
Tentatively, almost gingerly, the Government have become concerned in supporting this type of activity by young people, though financial grants are still minimal when compared with the relatively large sums expended on bricks and mortar for traditional youth service activities, with their inevitably limited value. Now we know that we have a Minister who has recognised the value and potential of this record of voluntary service. We know that we have a Minister who is determined to see Government financial support increased as soon as possible for this type of work.
This has prompted a good deal of optimism among those concerned. The reason for this optimism is two-fold. First, despite the rapid rate of increase in this work, it would have been impossible to go on increasing the rate without Government financial assistance. Secondly, it was becoming increasingly difficult for the voluntary organisations even to maintain the present level of activity on the basis of voluntary contri-

butions, and there was an increasing and desperate need for Government financial assistance.
In his desire to see how best to help, my hon. Friend first asked a committee of the Youth Service Development Council to report on possible co-ordination. My hon. Friend was not, evidently, altogether satisfied with its report, and this was a view shared by many of those working in the field. My hon. Friend has now distributed a new circular to the relevant authorities and organisations with his own proposals for the establishment of an independent national advisory unit, to be staffed by young people with relevant experience, and to have the status of an independent charitable trust. Its function will be to support and strengthen local voluntary service activity where it exists, and to initiate new activities where they do not yet exist.
To ensure success there are certain important questions in the minds of those principally concerned, and I believe that at this juncture it would be immensely helpful in reassuring those concerned if the Minister could see his way to answering them. One of the questions which I am constantly being asked by those in the field is what methodical and comprehensive assessment has been made by the Department of Education and Science of the extent and significance of current work and of the range of young people involved.
Next, what detailed and extensive evaluation has been made of the real needs of national and local volunteer agencies and school groups, and of the ways in which they believe the Government can best help, apart from financial assistance? Another question which is worrying those working in the field is what will be the rôle within the Minister's new scheme of existing volunteer agencies which operate at the national level?
Does the Department realise the degree to which success so far has been very much related to the variety of organisations and the sensitivity with which they operate, thus providing a wide range of motivation which enables young people to feel closely identified with the particular organisation of their choosing? Next, what detailed discussions have there been with hospital boards and other statutory and non-statutory organisations which


already use volunteers, and which could use expanded numbers of them, particularly with regard to the real value of such volunteers and to the future scope for them within such statutory and non-statutory bodies?
What consultations has the Department had on the best means of continuing the liaison between such statutory and non-statutory organisations and the volunteer placing agencies when the scheme starts? What studies has the Department made of successful patterns of such work elsewhere in Europe? For example, in France, the Government have collaborated closely with voluntary agencies for some time, in an organisation called Cotraveaux, which brings together precisely for this purpose agencies which can use volunteers and agencies that can place them. Has the Department had an opportunity to study the success of this work. Has it, for example, had an opportunity to go to Southern France, to the Ariege area of the Pyrenees, where there is a large-scale programme of rehabilitation of an extensive rural area, which is in a state of decline, and in which there is an inbuilt role for volunteer placing agencies in tackling the jobs which are essential to this rehabilitation?
It seems relevant that at a time when we know the Government are rethinking their conception of social and welfare services, that the Departments and the Ministries concerned with social welfare programmes should be considering actively how to co-operate even more fruitfully in the future with voluntary agencies, particularly as these agencies can always provide human flexibility within the framework of general social legislation.
Another question that is troubling people who very much want the Minister's scheme to succeed is: what sort of directing staff does he envisage for the advisory unit? There is a general conviction that it should have at least as much standing with and knowledge of the professional social work agencies as with the volunteer placing agencies themselves. What sort of controlling committee for the new advisory unit has the Minister in mind? Will it be a representative body, made up of people drawn from existing organisations, both at a national and local level, or will it rather

be an establishment-orientated body? If the Minister is tempted to opt for the latter, has he considered that formalisation and a heavy superstructure of this kind could lead to tragic paralysis, as has happened in too much of our traditional youth service? Does he not agree that the first principles of effective community development demand that the initiative in this field must come at the individual agency and local level, only being sensitively supported by any central unit?
Also, what studies is the Department making—I know it is making some, but how much attention is it really giving of the value of international participation in community service projects of this kind? This is a time when the Government are very much concerned with the possibility of entry into the European Economic Community, and it would be interesting to see evidence that they were committed to encouraging existing exchange programmes of young people who could actually engage in relevant community service projects in each other's countries. Already, in Western Europe, other countries are taking a magnificent lead in this respect, particularly France and West Germany.
I can well believe that in looking at the scheme and how it is to operate the Minister at times has felt a little dispirited by the apparent aggressive individualism of agencies already operating. I can reassure him. Obviously, what has made volunteer agencies tick in the past has been their rugged individualism; the best possible thing the Department could do at this stage would be to call a comprehensive round-table conference. I have suggested this before. At that round-table conference people from the organisations at national and local level, already working in the field, could come together to evaluate and discuss such points as that I have put forward tonight.
In this way, the Minister would have an ideal opportunity to win the direct and positive co-operation of the people who, in the final analysis, must make any new scheme he may have in mind work efficiently.

4.4 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): Even at this late hour I have listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth,


West (Mr. Judd) has had to say on the whole question of service by youth. He asked me 11 searching questions, each of which would require its own Adjournment debate—about the attitude of existing youth organisations, our consultations, the implementation of the Bessey proposals and the attitude of local authorities. He did not mention the trade unions, which have occupied much of my time in recent months. He will, therefore, not be surprised that I cannot give detailed answers.
It is common knowledge that the Government have been concerned to produce a scheme by which a significant proportion of young people can serve the rest of the community. My hon. Friend has a long association with one such, and I was pleased that he fairly outlined all the organisations in the field. I am pleased that he appreciates the emphasis which the Government put on the significance of such voluntary service in young people's lives. It is because we believe that an enormous amount of community work needs to be done that we have in the last few years been concentrating on a scheme to do this and get a tremendous increase.
Because of this, we asked the Director of Education for Cumberland, Mr. Bessey, to investigate whether this move forward was possible. After some months work, he concluded that it was. The organisations in the field agreed broadly, but not with the way that the Council, under Mr. Bessey, proposed tackling it. We then went into consultations. My hon. Friend told me not to worry about the robust individuality of these organisations and I hope never again to have such an experience as I have had during the last 12 months of trying to get agreement on the means of assisting youth service. It is almost impossible to get all the organisations to agree because they think, quite properly, that their method should be the pattern for the rest of the country.
We have, therefore, reached certain conclusions and I am sorry that it is too early for me now to state Government policy, as the negotiations are still in progress. I only recently concluded them with the local authority associations and the T.U.C. and others, but we have now reached a large measure of agreement. We must now consider the structure for the proposals which we shall shortly

make and the financing of the new organisation.
My hon. Friend said that something important which has not yet been appreciated by the country or the Youth Service is that there must be a significant movement from the traditional ideas of a youth service if our new objectives are to succeed. He was right to say that this was no discredit to the existing organisations, many of which are in the van in trying to create new opportunities for young people to give service. It means in these difficult days, particularly financially difficult days, that if a Minister is trying to change the direction of the Youth Service in a small but important way, then obviously, in expanding this side of our activities, this must to a certain extent be done at the expense of some of the traditional work that has been going on. I am glad to know that my hon. Friend appreciates this.
If it is valuable, as I believe it to be, for youngsters in schools and youth clubs to give voluntary service—and in this sector a significant amount is being done—it must be equally valuable for the large number of youngsters who do not belong to any youth organisations; the so-called "unattached". These youngsters form an army of people who, I believe, are as idealistic as any group of young people in history, although they do not see their place in the traditional form of youth service.
For them, as for all youngsters, an enormous amount of work needs to be done in the community; for the elderly, the handicapped, at work camps, holiday camps, and so on. I am conscious of the need to press on with these schemes. An important aspect is to find new ways of attracting young people who are not identifying themselves with the old, traditional youth service but who are, as we know, willing to co-operate if worthwhile opportunities are presented to them.
If I say nothing else in reply to this debate, I must emphasise the fact that we will not succeed in the schemes we have or may have—and this is why we are taking a considerable time to think the matter out; we want to ensure that we take the right steps—if our appeal to the nation is in words like, "It will do you good if you come in and do this work". If significant numbers of young people want to give voluntary service


within the community, that service will indeed do them a great deal of good.
But we will not attract people merely on that basis. We must appeal to the idealism of these youngsters by showing them the work that needs to be done; the elderly people whose homes need decorating, the handicapped who want to mix with ordinary, healthy people in wholesome surroundings, the play and recreational areas that need to be established in our countryside parks, the nation's canal system that needs attention and many others.
We have, in my Department and throughout the Government, been giving a great deal of thought to these proposals. The Ministry of Health, the Home Office and the Ministry of Social Security have been involved in the discussions we have been having and are all extremely enthusiastic, particularly about the need to get people to assist the folk for whom those Ministries are responsible. That encourages me a lot because I know that the statutory bodies in local government, the hospitals and the social security sphere are co-operating to the full in this matter. If Ministers are right in their

thinking on this matter and are enthusiastic in the welcome they are giving to these proposals, then we know that all concerned are actively concerned to see this side of our activities really succeed.
We will be trying to create a new piece of social service machinery. I can only say tonight that it will be a trust, or something of that sort. It would be wrong of me, or any Minister, to impose considerations of detail on such a trust—the sort of detail mentioned by my hon. Friend. I can only say that I hope very shortly to be able to announce the launching of this scheme. Having lived with this matter for two years, I assure the House that I respect the help I have received from my hon. Friend and others I have consulted, particularly since they have respected the confidence placed in them.
I hope to get this scheme launched very soon because I believe that it will be a tremendously worthwhile experience for those concerned and the direction in which the youth services of the country should be moving.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Four o'clock a.m.